Discussion:
OT - Forbes - Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Add Reply
a425couple
2019-07-06 16:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f

58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 15

50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generations
later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets and
other solar systems throughout the galaxy.

Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe that
human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire space
program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scale
fraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really did
occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at our
fingertips.

This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 11

1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,
even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world are
temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that we
can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But on
the Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.

Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, and
living species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case of
humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,
therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would still
remain today.

On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, and
life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and any
alterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 years
ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)

The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that move
and rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solid
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunar
surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.

In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltale
evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to the
sites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisively
collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, are
extremely well-documented.

Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during the
first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronaut
footprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as the
processes that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU

The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollo
landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imaged
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that the modern
instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able to
achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.

When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visible features include:

the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),
the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due to
highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),
and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which are
actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it in
modern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.
The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.

Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but is
arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (the
Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEP
equipment, which has a different configuration but still contains the
highly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths are
perhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other than
Edgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.

Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even the
most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles and
miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, but
because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity's
footprints have not yet been erased.

A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site of
Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearly
seen, as can the vehicle itself.

But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's still
visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At this
incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipment
remnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of the
last humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison
"Jack" Schmitt.

You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but the
footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two parallel
tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?
Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and it
enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunar
surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,
reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyond
this image.

2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollo
missions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back off
of the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting module
which would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn't
based off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but you
can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with even
basic modern software.

This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enter
lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returning
the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.

Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunar
surface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locations
where features such as this occur are consistent with the four sites
that correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages of
Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have still
never been determined.

But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,
NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into a
series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, most
eye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronauts
who journeyed on those trips.

Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, was
actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moon
than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.

Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's Bill
Anders, who descriped it as follows:

You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;
and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.

Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren't
faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.
Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we've
collected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.

Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during the
Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of this
equipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by the
astronauts who installed it.

3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuable
data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren't
simply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunar
surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to install
on the lunar surface and measure its properties.

Some of the more famous ones are listed below.

Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and
16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity and
moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.

The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfaces
installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the Soviet
Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions of
approximately 1 centimeter.

The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables us
to track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. The
earliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as part
of the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignment
between the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is
one of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.

The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,
since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allen
belts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.

The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,
except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.

The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact have
magnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is not
uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.

The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed to
measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from the
ascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,
and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of deposited
lunar dust.

An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments
Package's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enabling
scientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.

Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments to
install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEP
package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree with one
another and with the data collected from both previous and subsequent
experiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,
Earth, Moon, and their interplay.

The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar lander
missions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide us
with extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.

This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1
(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on the
Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET
(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is still
folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).

4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learning
unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collect
rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratory
analysis.

Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,
which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impact
scenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without the
Apollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidence
supporting this scenario.

A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from both
proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable of
creating one single, large moon with the physical and chemical
properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951

But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of the
lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to ever
walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise when
they did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to
travel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
exclaim the following:

Oh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirred
it up with my feet!

The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used to
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering a
rich, orange landscape beneath.

The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about the
Moon's origin and composition.

Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernan
and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back to
Earth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,
perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in our
Solar System?

What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this was
volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airless
surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tiny
beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)

Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly high
water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's the
same exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5

In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water was
included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in the
glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected dryness
of the Moon.

Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200
parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found have
indicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years into
the birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by the
Apollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.

A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /
GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity's
presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,
directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We have
extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting the
trips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunar
surface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,
took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. And
finally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon's
history, composition, and likely origin from it.

If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take your
own freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain are
completely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who
professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we know
about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,
astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
m***@sky.com
2019-07-06 16:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 15
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generations
later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets and
other solar systems throughout the galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe that
human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire space
program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scale
fraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really did
occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at our
fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,
even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world are
temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that we
can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But on
the Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, and
living species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case of
humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,
therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would still
remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, and
life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and any
alterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 years
ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that move
and rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solid
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunar
surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltale
evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to the
sites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisively
collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, are
extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during the
first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronaut
footprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as the
processes that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollo
landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imaged
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that the modern
instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able to
achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),
the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due to
highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),
and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which are
actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it in
modern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.
The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but is
arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (the
Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEP
equipment, which has a different configuration but still contains the
highly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths are
perhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other than
Edgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even the
most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles and
miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, but
because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity's
footprints have not yet been erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site of
Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearly
seen, as can the vehicle itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's still
visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At this
incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipment
remnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of the
last humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison
"Jack" Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but the
footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two parallel
tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?
Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and it
enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunar
surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,
reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyond
this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollo
missions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back off
of the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting module
which would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn't
based off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but you
can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with even
basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enter
lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returning
the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunar
surface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locations
where features such as this occur are consistent with the four sites
that correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages of
Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have still
never been determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,
NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into a
series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, most
eye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronauts
who journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, was
actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moon
than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's Bill
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;
and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren't
faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.
Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we've
collected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during the
Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of this
equipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by the
astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuable
data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren't
simply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunar
surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to install
on the lunar surface and measure its properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and
16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity and
moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfaces
installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the Soviet
Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions of
approximately 1 centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables us
to track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. The
earliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as part
of the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignment
between the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is
one of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,
since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allen
belts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,
except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact have
magnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is not
uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed to
measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from the
ascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,
and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of deposited
lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments
Package's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enabling
scientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments to
install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEP
package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree with one
another and with the data collected from both previous and subsequent
experiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,
Earth, Moon, and their interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar lander
missions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide us
with extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1
(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on the
Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET
(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is still
folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learning
unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collect
rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratory
analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,
which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impact
scenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without the
Apollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidence
supporting this scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from both
proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable of
creating one single, large moon with the physical and chemical
properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of the
lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to ever
walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise when
they did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to
travel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
Oh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirred
it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used to
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering a
rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about the
Moon's origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernan
and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back to
Earth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,
perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in our
Solar System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this was
volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airless
surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tiny
beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly high
water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's the
same exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water was
included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in the
glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected dryness
of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200
parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found have
indicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years into
the birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by the
Apollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /
GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity's
presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,
directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We have
extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting the
trips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunar
surface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,
took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. And
finally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon's
history, composition, and likely origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take your
own freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain are
completely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who
professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we know
about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,
astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-06 18:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these six
successful landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO 15
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds. Generations
later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling to other planets and
other solar systems throughout the galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe that
human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the entire space
program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a civilization-scale
fraud. Like most people alive today, all six of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they really did
occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it right at our
fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin planting
the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of footprints in the
foreground. These (and other) astronaut footprints, believe it or not,
are still visible today. NASA / APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the Moon,
even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our world are
temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns that we
can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same timescales. But on
the Moon, there are no oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water, and
living species, the Moon only has the occasional weak moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case of
humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on the Moon,
therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our presence would still
remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere, oceans, and
life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are absent, and any
alterations to the surface, even those made by humans some ~50 years
ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena that move
and rearrange the particles on our surface — without winds, rains,
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange solid
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunar
surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the telltale
evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do was return to the
sites where the documented landings occurred and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was decisively
collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, are
extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during the
first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are astronaut
footprints, which have stood the test of time on the Moon, as the
processes that erase them on Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the Apollo
landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and 17 — were imaged
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that the modern
instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was able to
achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per pixel.
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent Stage"),
the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label (which is due to
highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in 1967),
and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals, which are
actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of it in
modern times still carry the legacy of this nearly-50-years-old event.
The lunar surface changes very slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular, but is
arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the Moon (the
Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as the ALSEP
equipment, which has a different configuration but still contains the
highly reflective central power station. However, the footpaths are
perhaps even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other than
Edgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and even the
most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel for "miles and
miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later, but
because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances, humanity's
footprints have not yet been erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing site of
Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) can be clearly
seen, as can the vehicle itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's still
visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular. At this
incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths and equipment
remnants left on the lunar surface are unmistakable, courtesy of the
last humans to walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison
"Jack" Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment, but the
footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist of two parallel
tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why?
Because the final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints, and it
enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunar
surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in total,
reaching five miles away from the landing site and extending far beyond
this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the Apollo
missions themselves. How could the lunar module have ascended back off
of the surface and returned the astronauts back to the orbiting module
which would take them back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn't
based off of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere, but you
can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for yourself with even
basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards, increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to enter
lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module, but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after returning
the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across the lunar
surface all originate from a single darker point or smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified locations
where features such as this occur are consistent with the four sites
that correspond to the crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages of
Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have still
never been determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program. Years ago,
NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted into a
series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the greatest, most
eye-opening photos, stories and quotes originated from the astronauts
who journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing, was
actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to the Moon
than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's Bill
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft glowing;
and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos weren't
faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at the time.
Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of improved data we've
collected in the half-century since we last visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon during the
Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and operation of this
equipment was well-documented both remotely and in situ by the
astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of valuable
data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo missions weren't
simply publicity stunts; they were the pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on the lunar
surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific instruments to install
on the lunar surface and measure its properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, and
16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic activity and
moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective surfaces
installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well as the Soviet
Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon distance to precisions of
approximately 1 centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here, enables us
to track the lunar distance from Earth to ~centimeter accuracy. The
earliest laser reflectors were installed on the Moon's surface as part
of the Apollo program, and they remain in service today. The alignment
between the predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is
one of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's surface are,
since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic field nor Van Allen
belts to interfere with the received particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same thing,
except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in fact have
magnetized features on the surface, but that the magnetism is not
uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially installed to
measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar dust deposited from the
ascent stage and other, subsequent sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits,
and instead enabled us to accurately measure the effects of deposited
lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments
Package's power source (foreground) and "Central Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized, enabling
scientists to perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments to
install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the ALSEP
package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree with one
another and with the data collected from both previous and subsequent
experiments designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun,
Earth, Moon, and their interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar lander
missions) are still operational or otherwise in use today, provide us
with extremely strong evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1
(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on the
Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad. The MET
(Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is still
folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon, learning
unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to collect
rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth for laboratory
analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth, based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common origin,
which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant Impact
scenario to better describe the full suite of observables. Without the
Apollo missions, we might never have uncovered the critical evidence
supporting this scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from both
proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable of
creating one single, large moon with the physical and chemical
properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P. 910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties of the
lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two astronauts to ever
walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise when
they did. Schmitt, the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to
travel to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
Oh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all over! I stirred
it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we’re all used to
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer, covering a
rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much about the
Moon's origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter, Cernan
and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought samples back to
Earth for further analysis. What could cause orange soil on the Moon,
perhaps the most featureless of all the large, airless rocks in our
Solar System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this was
volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the airless
surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tiny
beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly high
water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable, because it's the
same exact concentration as the water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth and the Moon.
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water was
included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of water in the
glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as the expected dryness
of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to 1,200
parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples we've found have
indicated that Earth and the Moon have a common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of years into
the birth of our Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by the
Apollo missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar rocks. AFP /
GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to humanity's
presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see the evidence,
directly, when we look with the appropriate resolution. We have
extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs documenting the
trips, all supporting the fact that we landed and walked on the lunar
surface. We have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,
took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used today. And
finally, we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the Moon's
history, composition, and likely origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can take your
own freedom of choice away from you. But if you follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that remain are
completely unreasonable. We really did land on the Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator, who
professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what we know
about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a focus on physics,
astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviously a part
of the conspiracy!!
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-06 19:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the
-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot
on another world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought
about these six successful landings are sometimes called into
question by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really
occurred is overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years
since humanity first set foot on another world: our Moon. The
Apollo missions that brought about these six successful
landings are sometimes called into question by 'skeptics,'
but the evidence that they really occurred is overwhelming.
NASA / APOLLO 15
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first
footsteps on the surface of another world. With Neil
Armstrong's small step for a single man, humankind took a
great leap forward into the space age, demonstrating our
potential for reaching other planets and extending the reach
of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.
Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling
to other planets and other solar systems throughout the
galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe
that human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the
entire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a
civilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, all
six of humanity's Moon landings occurred before I was born.
Still, I'm 100% positive they really did occur, and we have
overwhelming evidence to prove it right at our fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /
APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the
Moon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our
world are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after
mere hours at most, as the motions of Earth's winds will erase
any coherent patterns that we can make, and will rearrange any
dunes on the same timescales. But on the Moon, there are no
oceans, no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the particles
that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid
water, and living species, the Moon only has the occasional
weak moonquake and the rare visit from an extraterrestrial
impactor or, in the case of humanity, lander or visitor. If we
truly did walk or land on the Moon, therefore, we'd expect
that the evidence of our presence would still remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and
other surface activity that comes about on a world with an
atmosphere, oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those
conditions are absent, and any alterations to the surface,
even those made by humans some ~50 years ago, should persist.
GREG PROHL (L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena
that move and rearrange the particles on our surface —
without winds, rains, snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. —
the only way to rearrange solid grains of particles are via
impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks up dust, which can
then migrate and settle elsewhere across the lunar surface,
any changes we've made to the Moon should remain visible on
the scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the
telltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do
was return to the sites where the documented landings occurred
and photograph them today. This is not simply a thought
experiment, but data that was decisively collected years ago,
when NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the entire
Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular, are
extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the
Moon, and we explored a much greater amount of the lunar
surface than during the first landing. The dark grey markings
on the surface are astronaut footprints, which have stood the
test of time on the Moon, as the processes that erase them on
Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO / GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the
Apollo landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and
17 — were imaged with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and
annotated, clearly showcasing a variety of human-created
features. By making a close pass to the lunar surface and
photographing it with the best technology that the modern
instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the team was
able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about 14") per
pixel.
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent
Stage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label
(which is due to highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in
1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,
which are actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of
it in modern times still carry the legacy of this
nearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes very
slowly over time, and the changes we made in 1971 are still
perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,
but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the
Moon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well
as the ALSEP equipment, which has a different configuration
but still contains the highly reflective central power
station. However, the footpaths are perhaps even more
spectacular and varied, belonging to none other than Edgar
Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and
even the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel
for "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can
absolutely see the evidence of the astronauts' presence. It
may be nearly 50 years later, but because the Moon is an
airless world with few disturbances, humanity's footprints
have not yet been erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing
site of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle
(LRV) can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's
still visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.
At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths
and equipment remnants left on the lunar surface are
Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,
but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist
of two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled
"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollo
missions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving vehicle! Its tracks
are distinctly different from footprints, and it enabled
astronauts to explore much greater distances on the lunar
surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22 miles in
total, reaching five miles away from the landing site and
extending far beyond this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the
Apollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module have
ascended back off of the surface and returned the astronauts
back to the orbiting module which would take them back to
Earth? Exactly like the video above shows, from direct Apollo
17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system isn't based off
of a single explosion, but rather a constant thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5
minutes. There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar
atmosphere, but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated
motion for yourself with even basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,
increasing its speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second.
This is enough to enter lunar orbit and dock with the command
and service module, but not enough to escape lunar orbit. This
is why every lunar module, after returning the astronauts,
crash-landed on the lunar surface. The locations of the lunar
modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the
impact sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the
LRO data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across
the lunar surface all originate from a single darker point or
smudge. This is the telltale sign of a recent impact, and the
four identified locations where features such as this occur
are consistent with the four sites that correspond to the
crash-landing of the lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15,
and 17. Apollo 11's and 16's locations have still never been
determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands
of photos taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire
program. Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve
Apollo missions that made it to space on a publicly available
Flickr photostream, sorted into a series of incredible albums
by mission. Some of the greatest, most eye-opening photos,
stories and quotes originated from the astronauts who
journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon
landing, was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that
would have allowed them to land on the lunar surface
themselves. They came closer to the Moon than any previous
crewed mission, and paved the way for the actual moon landing
which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft
glowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind
us. It was an eerie feeling, like being a gnat inside a
blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos
weren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist
at the time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of
improved data we've collected in the half-century since we
last visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon
during the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and
operation of this equipment was well-documented both remotely
and in situ by the astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of
valuable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo
missions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were the
pinnacle of human exploration of another world. From the very
first crewed mission to land on the lunar surface, we sent up
a large suite of scientific instruments to install on the
lunar surface and measure its properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic
activity and moonquakes until the final station failed in
1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain
operational even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the
reflective surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15
crews, as well as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the
Earth-Moon distance to precisions of approximately 1
centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,
enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to
~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors were
installed on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,
and they remain in service today. The alignment between the
predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is
one of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the
flux, and composition of solar wind particles that reach the
Moon's surface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a
magnetic field nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the
received particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same
thing, except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind
particles, rather than the composition measured by the SWC
experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed
to measure the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon
does in fact have magnetized features on the surface, but that
the magnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we
now know there is no coherent magnetic field powered by an
active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially
installed to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar
dust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequent
sources. The experiments performed by the Apollo program
showed that we vastly overestimated dust deposits, and instead
enabled us to accurately measure the effects of deposited
lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package's power source (foreground) and "Central
Station" (background), where the Lunar Dust Detector was
mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo 14's and 15's LDD
experiment was restored and digitized, enabling scientists to
perform the first long-term analysis of lunar dust deposition.
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments
to install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the
ALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package, was designed to do. The results from
these experiments agree with one another and with the data
collected from both previous and subsequent experiments
designed to measure a variety of properties of the Sun, Earth,
Moon, and their interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and
that many of them (and their successors on later Apollo
missions and lunar lander missions) are still operational or
otherwise in use today, provide us with extremely strong
evidence that we did, in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan
Shepard's 12 o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the
start of EVA-1 (moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see
some detail on the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band
antenna, ladder, and the LRRR (Laser Ranging Retroreflector)
are all located in the west footpad. The MET (Modular
Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed and is still
folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,
learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the
Moon's history in the process. One of the primary goals of the
Apollo mission was to collect rocks from the lunar surface and
return them to Earth for laboratory analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,
based on the isotope ratios of the elements present, likely
share a common origin, which was likely caused by a
cataclysmic impact approximately 50 million years after the
formation of the Solar System. Originally formulated as the
Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a
new type of structure called a synestia, which generalized the
Giant Impact scenario to better describe the full suite of
observables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never have
uncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material
from both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large
moon inside of it from the coalescence of moonlets. This is a
general scenario capable of creating one single, large moon
with the physical and chemical properties we observe ours to
have. S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018),
P. 910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo
missions landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the
properties of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The
final two astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and
Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, the
lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to the
Moon, was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to
Oh, hey! Wait a minute
 THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all
over! I stirred it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that
we’re all used to seeing — in one particular spot was only
a very thin veneer, covering a rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really
stands out when compared to the colorations visible on the
rest of the Moon. Apollo 17, perhaps because they had a
geoscientist as one of their moonwalkers, was able to spot
this geological oddity that taught us so much about the Moon's
origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that
matter, Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and
brought samples back to Earth for further analysis. What could
cause orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless of
all the large, airless rocks in our Solar System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this
was volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from
the interior of the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years
ago, up above the airless surface and into the vacuum of
space. As the lava became exposed to the vacuum, it separated
out into tiny fragments and froze, forming tiny beads of
volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly
high water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,
because it's the same exact concentration as the water found
in terrestrial (Earth-based) olivine inclusions, pointing to a
common origin for the Earth and the Moon. E.H. HAURI ET AL.,
SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water
was included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of
water in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as
the expected dryness of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up
to 1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples
we've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have a
common origin, consistent with a giant impact that occurred
only a few tens of millions of years into the birth of our
Solar System. Without direct samples, obtained by the Apollo
missions and brought back to Earth, we never would have been
able to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or
'mug shot' of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged
fragment from a parent boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken
close to the boulder, allowing for study of the type and rate
of erosion acting on lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May
5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot' of Apollo 16 lunar
sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent boulder.
A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder, allowing
for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on lunar
rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to
humanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see
the evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriate
resolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging
from eyewitness testimony to the data record tracking the
missions to photographs documenting the trips, all supporting
the fact that we landed and walked on the lunar surface. We
have a slew of scientific instruments that were installed,
took data, and a few of which can still be seen and used
today. And finally, we've brought back lunar samples and
learned about the Moon's history, composition, and likely
origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can
take your own freedom of choice away from you. But if you
follow the evidence, and that's what science compels us to do,
the only doubts that remain are completely unreasonable. We
really did land on the Moon, and this is the science to back
it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other
work here. Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,
who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I
have won numerous awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what
we know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a
focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviously
a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe that
other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-06 20:36:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviously
a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe that
other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 01:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was
disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years
ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well
have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that
people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on
the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is
obviously a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe that
other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be any
other way.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Kevrob
2019-07-07 01:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was
disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years
ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well
have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that
people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on
the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is
obviously a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe that
other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be any
other way.
The conspiranoiacs think "Capricorn One" was a documentary. :)

Actually:

[quote]

Clips from the faked Mars landing scenes have been used for
illustration purposes in various moon landing hoax conspiracy
documentaries, notably the Fox TV show "Conspiracy Theory: Did
We Land On The Moon?" and Bart Sibrel's film "A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Moon" (2001). The latter also features
a still shot from the hoax scene on the DVD's front cover

{citation needed}

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

Of course, THEY won't let us have the citation.....

Kevin R
a.a #2310
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 03:41:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was
disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few
years ago I did come across somebody who told me it could
very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I
told him that people have measured the distance to laser
reflectors left on the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if
I convinced him.
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is
obviously a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe
that other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
Indeed. But, to maintain the delusion, it really can't be any
other way.
The conspiranoiacs think "Capricorn One" was a documentary. :)
IIRC, the inspiration for Capricorn One was, in fact, the actual
moon landing conspiracy theory. In those days, the conspiracy
theory was recognized as too stupid even for a movie audience, so
they had to fictionalize it.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2019-07-08 06:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is obviously
a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe that
other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
Technically, a Mobius strip is a section out of a flat manifold, and you can
make a topological Klein bottle from a flat square too. So yeah, how twisted
their mental paths are doesn't appear to jar them from flatness. Nor does
seeing other flat earthers whose views appear to be upside down from theirs
over their heads...

Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 11:20:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
Obviously, if you're going to believe the Earth is flat, you will have to also
believe that Newton's theory of universal gravitation is wrong too.

Believing that the integral and differential calculus is just voodoo mumbo-jumbo
is optional, however, despite being quite common in those circles.

John Savard
Robert Woodward
2019-07-08 17:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
Obviously, if you're going to believe the Earth is flat, you will
have to also believe that Newton's theory of universal gravitation is
wrong too.
Newton's theory of universal gravitation IS wrong. Einstein's Theory of
General Relativity replaced it.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Quadibloc
2019-07-08 17:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
Obviously, if you're going to believe the Earth is flat, you will
have to also believe that Newton's theory of universal gravitation is
wrong too.
Newton's theory of universal gravitation IS wrong. Einstein's Theory of
General Relativity replaced it.
That minor amendment, though, is not comprehensive enough to help flat-earthers.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 15:34:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Of course not! Anyone who claims to have done that is
obviously a part of the conspiracy!!
Which is a step up from the flat earthers, who now believe
that other flat earthers are part of the conspiracy.
O_o
Technically, a Mobius strip is a section out of a flat manifold,
and you can make a topological Klein bottle from a flat square
too. So yeah, how twisted their mental paths are doesn't appear
to jar them from flatness. Nor does seeing other flat earthers
whose views appear to be upside down from theirs over their
heads...
Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would
behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
Calculus is a tool of the conspiracy, just like you are.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
David DeLaney
2019-07-08 20:54:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David DeLaney
Dave, they also don't seem to understand how the air would behave near the
edges. LEARN CALCULUS, KOOK FOLKS
Calculus is a tool of the conspiracy, just like you are.
Pshaw. Calculus is just throwing a LOT of very very small stones.

Dave, the ghosts of departed quantities
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-06 19:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-
apollo-mo
on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Post by a425couple
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot
on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these
six successful landings are sometimes called into question by
'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred is
overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity
first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these
six successful landings are sometimes called into question by
'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred is
overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO
15
Post by a425couple
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first
footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and
extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.
Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling
to other planets and other solar systems throughout the galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe
that human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the
entire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a
civilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, all six
of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they
really did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it
right at our fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /
APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the
Moon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our
world are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere
hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns
that we can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same
timescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans, no
atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water,
and living species, the Moon only has the occasional weak
moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case of
humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on
the Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our
presence would still remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,
oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are
absent, and any alterations to the surface, even those made by
humans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L);
BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena
that move and rearrange the particles on our surface —
without winds, rains
,
Post by a425couple
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange
sol
id
Post by a425couple
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event
that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the
lunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain
visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the
telltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do
was return to the sites where the documented landings occurred
and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was
decisively collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular,
are extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the
Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during
the first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are
astronaut footprints, which have stood the test of time on the
Moon, as the processes that erase them on Earth are absent on
the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the
Apollo landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and
17 â€
” were imaged
Post by a425couple
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly
showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that the
modern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the
team was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about
14") per pixel.
When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visible features
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent
Stage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label
(which is due to highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in
1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,
which are actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of
it in modern times still carry the legacy of this
nearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes very
slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,
but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the
Moon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as
the ALSEP equipment, which has a different configuration but
still contains the highly reflective central power station.
However, the footpaths are perhaps even more spectacular and
varied, belonging to none other than Edgar Mitchell and famed
lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and
even the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel
for "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can
absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later,
but because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances,
humanity's footprints have not yet been erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing
site of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's
still visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.
At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths
and equipment remnants left on the lunar surface are
Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,
but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist
of two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled
"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollo missions
contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints,
and it enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on
the lunar surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22
miles in total, reaching five miles away from the landing site
and extending far beyond
this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the
Apollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module have
ascended back off of the surface and returned the astronauts
back to the orbiting module which would take them back to
Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system
isn't based off of a single explosion, but rather a constant
thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere,
but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for
yourself with even basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,
increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to
enter lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module,
but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after
returning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.
The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and
the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO
data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across
the lunar surface all originate from a single darker point or
smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified
locations where features such as this occur are consistent with
the four sites that correspond to the crash-landing of the
lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's
and 16's locations have still never been determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands
of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.
Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo
missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted
into a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the
greatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotes
originated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing,
was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have
allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to
the Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way
for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's Bill
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft
glowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind
us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos
weren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at
the time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of
improved data we've collected in the half-century since we last
visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon
during the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and
operation of this equipment was well-documented both remotely
and in situ by the astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of
valuable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo
missions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were the
pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on
the lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific
instruments to install on the lunar surface and measure its
properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic
activity and moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain
operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective
surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well
as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon
distance to precisions of approximately 1 centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,
enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to
~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors were
installed on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,
and they remain in service today. The alignment between the
predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is one
of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of
gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's
surface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic
field nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the received
particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same
thing, except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind
particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in
fact have magnetized features on the surface, but that the
magnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now
know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially
installed to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar
dust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequent
sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust
deposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure the
effects of deposited lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package's power source (foreground) and "Central
Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data
from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,
enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysis of
lunar dust depositi
on.
Post by a425couple
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments
to install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the
ALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree with
one another and with the data collected from both previous and
subsequent experiments designed to measure a variety of
properties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and their interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar
lander missions) are still operational or otherwise in use
today, provide us with extremely strong evidence that we did,
in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan
Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1
(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on
the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and
the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.
The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed
and is still folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage
Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,
learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the
Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to
collect rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth
for laboratory analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,
based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common
origin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact
approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally
formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant
Impact scenario to better describe the full suite of
observables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never have
uncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from
both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon
inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable
of creating one single, large moon with the physical and
chemical properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.
910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties
of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two
astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran
into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, the lone
civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to the Moon,
was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
Oh, hey! Wait a minute
 THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all ov
er! I stirred
Post by a425couple
it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we
’re all used to
Post by a425couple
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer,
cove
ring a
Post by a425couple
rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon.
Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their
moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much
about the Moon's origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter,
Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought
samples back to Earth for further analysis. What could cause
orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless of all
the large, airless rocks in our Solar System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this
was volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the
interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the
airless surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava
became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming
tiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The
tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly
high water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,
because it's the same exact concentration as the water found in
terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth
and the Moo
n.
Post by a425couple
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water
was included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of
water in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as
the expected dryness of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to
1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples
we've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have a
common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of
years into the birth of our Solar System. Without direct
samples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back to
Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or
'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,
allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on
lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a
close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,
allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on
lunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to
humanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see
the evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriate
resolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging
from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs
documenting the trips, all supporting the fact that we landed
and walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew of scientific
instruments that were installed, took data, and a few of which
can still be seen and used today. And finally, we've brought
back lunar samples and learned about the Moon's history,
composition, and likely origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can
take your own freedom of choice away from you. But if you
follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that
remain are completely unreasonable. We really did land on the
Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other
work here. Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,
who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have
won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what
we know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a
focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.

Some people are just *stupid*.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2019-07-06 20:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-
apollo-mo
on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Post by a425couple
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these
six successful landings are sometimes called into question by
'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred is
overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity
first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about these
six successful landings are sometimes called into question by
'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really occurred is
overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO
15
Post by a425couple
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first
footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and
extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.
Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of traveling
to other planets and other solar systems throughout the galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't believe
that human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA and the
entire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a hoax, or a
civilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive today, all six
of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they
really did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove it
right at our fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence of
footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA /
APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on the
Moon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on our
world are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear after mere
hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent patterns
that we can make, and will rearrange any dunes on the same
timescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans, no
atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid water,
and living species, the Moon only has the occasional weak
moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case of
humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land on
the Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our
presence would still remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are only
temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains, and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,
oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are
absent, and any alterations to the surface, even those made by
humans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL (L);
BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena
that move and rearrange the particles on our surface —
without winds, rains
,
Post by a425couple
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to rearrange
sol
id
Post by a425couple
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across the
lunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should remain
visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the
telltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do
was return to the sites where the documented landings occurred
and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was
decisively collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in particular,
are extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the
Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than during
the first landing. The dark grey markings on the surface are
astronaut footprints, which have stood the test of time on the
Moon, as the processes that erase them on Earth are absent on
the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of the
Apollo landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12, 14, and
17 �€
” were imaged
Post by a425couple
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated, clearly showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that the
modern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide, the
team was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm (about
14") per pixel.
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent
Stage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label
(which is due to highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier (in
1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up canals,
which are actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images of
it in modern times still carry the legacy of this
nearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes very
slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,
but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on the
Moon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as well as
the ALSEP equipment, which has a different configuration but
still contains the highly reflective central power station.
However, the footpaths are perhaps even more spectacular and
varied, belonging to none other than Edgar Mitchell and famed
lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered, and
even the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite travel
for "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed, we can
absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years later,
but because the Moon is an airless world with few disturbances,
humanity's footprints have not yet been erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the landing
site of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's
still visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of spectacular.
At this incredibly high resolution, expansive traveling paths
and equipment remnants left on the lunar surface are
Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP equipment,
but the footpaths appear far, far greater in scale and consist
of two parallel tracks, plus there's a bright spot labeled
"LRV" in addition. Why? Because the final three Apollo missions
contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from footprints,
and it enabled astronauts to explore much greater distances on
the lunar surface. The tracks from the LRV extend for over 22
miles in total, reaching five miles away from the landing site
and extending far beyond
this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from the
Apollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module have
ascended back off of the surface and returned the astronauts
back to the orbiting module which would take them back to
Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant system
isn't based off of a single explosion, but rather a constant
thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar atmosphere,
but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated motion for
yourself with even basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,
increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough to
enter lunar orbit and dock with the command and service module,
but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after
returning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.
The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known, and the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO
data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across
the lunar surface all originate from a single darker point or
smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified
locations where features such as this occur are consistent with
the four sites that correspond to the crash-landing of the
lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo 11's
and 16's locations have still never been determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are thousands of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.
Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo
missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted
into a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the
greatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotes
originated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon landing,
was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that would have
allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to
the Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way
for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to Apollo 8's Bill
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the spacecraft
glowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying off behind
us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and videos
weren't faked, the technology and data to do so didn't exist at
the time. Somehow, it all lines up with the full suite of
improved data we've collected in the half-century since we last
visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon
during the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and
operation of this equipment was well-documented both remotely
and in situ by the astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of
valuable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo
missions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were the
pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on
the lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific
instruments to install on the lunar surface and measure its
properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12, 14,
15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's seismic
activity and moonquakes until the final station failed in 1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain
operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the reflective
surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 crews, as well
as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure the Earth-Moon
distance to precisions of approximately 1 centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,
enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to
~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors were
installed on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo program,
and they remain in service today. The alignment between the
predicted and observed distances of the Moon over time is one
of science's great accomplishments in our understanding of
gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's
surface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic
field nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the received
particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the same
thing, except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind
particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in
fact have magnetized features on the surface, but that the
magnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we now
know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially
installed to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar
dust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequent
sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust
deposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure the
effects of deposited lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package's power source (foreground) and "Central
Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,
enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysis of
lunar dust depositi
on.
Post by a425couple
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of experiments
to install and perform on the lunar surface. This is what the
ALSEP package, which stands for Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree with
one another and with the data collected from both previous and
subsequent experiments designed to measure a variety of
properties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and their interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and lunar
lander missions) are still operational or otherwise in use
today, provide us with extremely strong evidence that we did,
in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan
Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of EVA-1
(moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some detail on
the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna, ladder, and
the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.
The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been deployed
and is still folded up on the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage
Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,
learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the
Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was to
collect rocks from the lunar surface and return them to Earth
for laboratory analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,
based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a common
origin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmic impact
approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally
formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant
Impact scenario to better describe the full suite of
observables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never have
uncovered the critical evidence supporting this scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material from
both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large moon
inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario capable
of creating one single, large moon with the physical and
chemical properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.
910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the properties
of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The final two
astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and Schmitt, ran
into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt, the lone
civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel to the Moon,
was often described as the most business-like of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
Oh, hey! Wait a minute… THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all ov
er! I stirred
Post by a425couple
it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that we
’re all used to
Post by a425couple
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin veneer,
cove
ring a
Post by a425couple
rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their
moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much
about the Moon's origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that matter,
Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data, and brought
samples back to Earth for further analysis. What could cause
orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most featureless of all
the large, airless rocks in our Solar System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this
was volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from the
interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above the
airless surface and into the vacuum of space. As the lava
became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze, forming
tiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and black colors. (The
tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a spectacularly
high water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is remarkable,
because it's the same exact concentration as the water found in
terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the Earth
and the Moo
n.
Post by a425couple
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that water
was included in the volcanic eruption: with concentrations of
water in the glass beads that were formed 50 times as great as
the expected dryness of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up to
1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar samples
we've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon have a
common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of
years into the birth of our Solar System. Without direct
samples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back to
Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,
allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on
lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a
close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the boulder,
allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion acting on
lunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to
humanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see
the evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriate
resolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence, ranging
from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs
documenting the trips, all supporting the fact that we landed
and walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew of scientific
instruments that were installed, took data, and a few of which
can still be seen and used today. And finally, we've brought
back lunar samples and learned about the Moon's history,
composition, and likely origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can
take your own freedom of choice away from you. But if you
follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that
remain are completely unreasonable. We really did land on the
Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other
work here. Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science communicator,
who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. I have
won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of what
we know about the Universe as well as how we know it, with a
focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif... Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.

I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'

pt
Dimensional Traveler
2019-07-06 20:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Peter Trei
2019-07-07 02:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
Love it!

pt
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-07 02:31:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
+1,000,000

Lynn
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-07 03:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
Oh, dear.

Also, there's at least one shot where it is clear that what's
*supposed* to be in zero-G was shot under full Earth gravity: the
shuttle stewardess walking around the circular path to the next
airlock ... and there's a close-up of her foot in its Velcro
shoe, flexing under its full weight.

Now, if I'd been on Kubrick's team, I would've urged him to put
the stewardess in a Peter Pan harness just for that one shot.

And, perhaps, to have molasses or something in the coffee
pitcher, so it would flow slowly.

But I wasn't there.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Peter Trei
2019-07-07 15:35:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by m***@sky.com
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with the Soviets.
Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets certainly could. If the
USSR could have shown that the US program was a fraud, they certainly would
have.
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
http://www.vgg.com/tr/tr_102201_moon.html
Oh, dear.
Also, there's at least one shot where it is clear that what's
*supposed* to be in zero-G was shot under full Earth gravity: the
shuttle stewardess walking around the circular path to the next
airlock ... and there's a close-up of her foot in its Velcro
shoe, flexing under its full weight.
Now, if I'd been on Kubrick's team, I would've urged him to put
the stewardess in a Peter Pan harness just for that one shot.
And, perhaps, to have molasses or something in the coffee
pitcher, so it would flow slowly.
That shot is one of the more problematic. It occurs in the small shuttle
taking Heywood Floyd and his lunar base counterpart from Clavius to Tycho
to see TMI-1 (the monolith). The shuttle is shown traveling, airplane
style over the surface, and the interior has gravity. This doesn't make
sense - its in a vacuum, and is either in orbit, with freefall, or riding
jets against the lunar gravity. But no jets are visible.

The coffee pouring scene cuts away at the moment the liquid would become
visible. I suspect Kubrick felt he'd already done enough zero-g gags at that
point.

Another problem scene is the conference room at Clavious - people move about as
if under 1 G. [As an aside: I recently realized that two of the people
attending, as full participants, are women].

pt
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But I wasn't there.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-06 20:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
I like to say that 'sure it was fake; we hired Kubrick to film it (2001
used part of his demo reel). But he was perfectionist, and insisted on
filming on location.'
Rasff award with meteorite clusters.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 01:17:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-t
he- apollo-mo
on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Post by a425couple
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
Starts With A Bang
Ethan Siegel Contributor
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
It has now been nearly 50 years since humanity first set
foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about
these six successful landings are sometimes called into
question by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really
occurred is overwhelming. It has now been nearly 50 years
since humanity first set foot on another
world: our Moon. The Apollo missions that brought about
these six successful landings are sometimes called into
question by 'skeptics,' but the evidence that they really
occurred is overwhelming. NASA / APOLLO
15
Post by a425couple
50 years ago, on July 20, 1969, humanity took our first
footsteps on the
surface of another world. With Neil Armstrong's small step
for a single
man, humankind took a great leap forward into the space age,
demonstrating our potential for reaching other planets and
extending the
reach of human civilization far beyond our Earthly bonds.
Generations later, in 2019, we're still dreaming of
traveling to other planets and other solar systems
throughout the galaxy.
Yet there are many who proudly declare that they don't
believe that human beings have ever left Earth. That NASA
and the entire space program is nothing more than a ruse, a
hoax, or a civilization-scale fraud. Like most people alive
today, all six of humanity's Moon landings
occurred before I was born. Still, I'm 100% positive they
really did occur, and we have overwhelming evidence to prove
it right at our fingertips.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz
Aldrin planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence
of footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today.
This iconic image, taken by Neil Armstrong, shows Buzz
Aldrin planting the US flag on the Moon. Note the presence
of footprints in the foreground. These (and other) astronaut
footprints, believe it or not, are still visible today. NASA
/ APOLLO 11
1.) We can still see the evidence of the Apollo program on
the Moon, even today. Here on Earth, marks that we make on
our world are temporary. Footsteps in the sand disappear
after mere hours at most, as
the motions of Earth's winds will erase any coherent
patterns that we can make, and will rearrange any dunes on
the same timescales. But on the Moon, there are no oceans,
no atmosphere, and no forces to shift the
particles that compose the lunar regiolith.
Whereas on Earth, we have an atmosphere, weather, liquid
water, and living species, the Moon only has the occasional
weak moonquake and the
rare visit from an extraterrestrial impactor or, in the case
of humanity, lander or visitor. If we truly did walk or land
on the Moon, therefore, we'd expect that the evidence of our
presence would still remain today.
On Earth, footprints or other markings on the surface are
only temporary, and are easily erased by the winds, rains,
and other surface
activity that comes about on a world with an atmosphere,
oceans, and life. On the Moon, however, those conditions are
absent, and any alterations to the surface, even those made
by humans some ~50 years ago, should persist. GREG PROHL
(L); BYRON JORJORIAN (R)
The reason is straightforward: without terrestrial phenomena
that move and rearrange the particles on our surface —
without winds, rains
,
Post by a425couple
snows, glaciers, rockslides, etc. — the only way to
rearrange sol
id
Post by a425couple
grains of particles are via impacts. Unless there's an event that kicks
up dust, which can then migrate and settle elsewhere across
the lunar surface, any changes we've made to the Moon should
remain visible on the
scale of a human lifetime.
In other words, if we ever did truly land on the Moon, the
telltale evidence should still be there. All we'd have to do
was return to the sites where the documented landings
occurred and photograph them today.
This is not simply a thought experiment, but data that was
decisively collected years ago, when NASA's Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter mapped the
entire Moon's surface. The Apollo landing sites, in
particular, are extremely well-documented.
Apollo 12 was the first precision landing of humans on the
Moon, and we
explored a much greater amount of the lunar surface than
during the first landing. The dark grey markings on the
surface are astronaut footprints, which have stood the test
of time on the Moon, as the processes that erase them on
Earth are absent on the Moon. NASA / LRO /
GSFC / ASU
The orbiter has not only photographed every single one of
the Apollo landing sites, but three of them — Apollo 12,
14, and 17 ᅵ€
” were imaged
Post by a425couple
with the orbiter's Narrow Angle Camera and annotated,
clearly showcasing
a variety of human-created features. By making a close pass to the lunar
surface and photographing it with the best technology that
the modern instruments LRO was equipped with could provide,
the team was able to achieve resolutions as sharp as 35 cm
(about 14") per pixel.
When you examine the Apollo 12 landing site, visible
the physical landing site (annotated with "Intrepid Descent
Stage"), the bright "L"-shaped feature near the ALSEP label
(which is due to highly reflective power cables),
the Surveyor 3 probe that landed on the Moon years earlier
(in 1967), and a set of grey paths that look like dried-up
canals, which are actually astronaut footpaths!
The Apollo 14 landing site is still intact, and our images
of it in modern times still carry the legacy of this
nearly-50-years-old event. The lunar surface changes very
slowly over time, and the changes we made
in 1971 are still perceptible, virtually unchanged, today.
Apollo 14's landing site might be less visually spectacular,
but is arguably far more famous. The module that landed on
the Moon (the Antares Descent Stage) is clearly visible, as
well as the ALSEP equipment, which has a different
configuration but still contains the highly reflective
central power station. However, the footpaths are perhaps
even more spectacular and varied, belonging to none other
than Edgar Mitchell and famed lunar golfer Alan Shepard.
Although the golf balls that he hit were never recovered,
and even the most distant golf shot probably didn't quite
travel for "miles and miles" as Shepard originally claimed,
we can absolutely see the evidence
of the astronauts' presence. It may be nearly 50 years
later, but because the Moon is an airless world with few
disturbances, humanity's footprints have not yet been
erased.
A photograph from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the
landing site of Apollo 17. The tracks of the Lunar Roving
Vehicle (LRV) can be clearly seen, as can the vehicle
itself.
But compared to these earlier missions, the evidence that's
still visible from Apollo 17 is nothing short of
spectacular. At this incredibly high resolution, expansive
traveling paths and equipment remnants left on the lunar
surface are unmistakable, courtesy of the last humans to
walk on the Moon: Eugene "Gene" Cernan and Harrison "Jack"
Schmitt.
You can still see the descent module and the ALSEP
equipment, but the footpaths appear far, far greater in
scale and consist of two parallel tracks, plus there's a
bright spot labeled "LRV" in addition. Why? Because the
final three Apollo missions contained an Apollo Lunar Roving
vehicle! Its tracks are distinctly different from
footprints, and it enabled astronauts to explore much
greater distances on the lunar surface. The tracks from the
LRV extend for over 22 miles in total, reaching five miles
away from the landing site and extending far beyond
this image.
2.) We have extensive photographic and video evidence from
the Apollo missions themselves. How could the lunar module
have ascended back off of the surface and returned the
astronauts back to the orbiting module which would take them
back to Earth? Exactly like the video above shows,
from direct Apollo 17 footage. The hypergolic propellant
system isn't based off of a single explosion, but rather a
constant thrust of ~16,000
Newtons that was steadily delivered over a timespan of about 5 minutes.
There's no exhaust trail because there's no lunar
atmosphere, but you can track the spacecraft's accelerated
motion for yourself with even basic modern software.
This is enough force to launch the ascent stage upwards,
increasing its
speed by about 2,000-3,000 meters-per-second. This is enough
to enter lunar orbit and dock with the command and service
module, but not enough
to escape lunar orbit. This is why every lunar module, after
returning the astronauts, crash-landed on the lunar surface.
The locations of the
lunar modules of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17 are all known,
and the impact
sites (along with the ejecta) are again visible in the LRO
data.
Here, the dark marks that fan out and appear to spray across
the lunar surface all originate from a single darker point
or smudge. This is the
telltale sign of a recent impact, and the four identified
locations where features such as this occur are consistent
with the four sites that correspond to the crash-landing of
the lunar ascent stages of Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 17. Apollo
11's and 16's locations have still never been determined.
But there's even more evidence than that: there are
thousands of photos
taken by Apollo astronauts documenting the entire program.
Years ago, NASA released all the photos of the twelve Apollo
missions that made it
to space on a publicly available Flickr photostream, sorted
into a series of incredible albums by mission. Some of the
greatest, most eye-opening photos, stories and quotes
originated from the astronauts who journeyed on those trips.
Apollo 10, known as the 'dress rehearsal' for the Moon
landing, was actually equipped with all the apparatuses that
would have allowed them
to land on the lunar surface themselves. They came closer to
the Moon than any previous crewed mission, and paved the way
for the actual moon
landing which took place with Apollo 11 in July of 1969.
Traveling through the atmosphere, both exiting the Earth and
re-entering, sound horrifying and harrowing according to
Apollo 8's Bill
You could see the flames and the outer skin of the
spacecraft glowing; and burning, baseball-size chunks flying
off behind us. It was an eerie
feeling, like being a gnat inside a blowtorch flame.
Although there is no way to prove that these photos and
videos weren't faked, the technology and data to do so
didn't exist at the time. Somehow, it all lines up with the
full suite of improved data we've collected in the
half-century since we last visited the Moon.
Some of the deployed scientific equipment taken to the Moon
during the Apollo 12 mission, where the installation and
operation of this equipment was well-documented both
remotely and in situ by the astronauts who installed it.
3.) The scientific instruments left there returned years of
valuable data, and some are still in use today. The Apollo
missions weren't simply publicity stunts; they were the
pinnacle of human exploration of
another world. From the very first crewed mission to land on
the lunar surface, we sent up a large suite of scientific
instruments to install on the lunar surface and measure its
properties.
Some of the more famous ones are listed below.
Lunar seismometers, which were installed by Apollo 11, 12,
14, 15, and 16, which transmitted data about the Moon's
seismic activity and moonquakes until the final station
failed in 1977.
The lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays, which remain operational
even today, enable us to reflect lasers off of the
reflective surfaces installed by the Apollo 11, 14, and 15
crews, as well as the Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover, to measure
the Earth-Moon distance to precisions of approximately 1
centimeter.
The lunar laser ranging facility at Goddard, as shown here,
enables us to track the lunar distance from Earth to
~centimeter accuracy. The earliest laser reflectors were
installed on the Moon's surface as part of the Apollo
program, and they remain in service today. The alignment
between the predicted and observed distances of the Moon
over time is one of science's great accomplishments in our
understanding of gravity.
The SWC (solar wind composition) experiment taught us what
the flux, and
composition of solar wind particles that reach the Moon's
surface are, since there's neither atmosphere nor a magnetic
field nor Van Allen belts to interfere with the received
particles on the Moon.
The SWS (solar wind spectrum) experiment did exactly the
same thing, except for the energy spectrum of the solar wind
particles, rather than
the composition measured by the SWC experiment.
The LSM (lunar surface magnetometer) experiment was designed to measure
the lunar magnetic field, determining that the Moon does in
fact have magnetized features on the surface, but that the
magnetism is not uniform across the Moon. Unlike Earth, we
now know there is no coherent
magnetic field powered by an active core on the Moon.
The LDD (lunar dust detector) experiment was initially
installed to measure how solar panels degraded due to lunar
dust deposited from the ascent stage and other, subsequent
sources. The experiments performed by
the Apollo program showed that we vastly overestimated dust
deposits, and instead enabled us to accurately measure the
effects of deposited lunar dust.
An Apollo 14 astronaut deploys the Apollo Lunar Surface
Experiments Package's power source (foreground) and "Central
Station" (background),
where the Lunar Dust Detector was mounted. In 2012, the data from Apollo
14's and 15's LDD experiment was restored and digitized,
enabling scientists to perform the first long-term analysis
of lunar dust depositi
on.
Post by a425couple
Each Apollo mission was outfitted with an array of
experiments to install and perform on the lunar surface.
This is what the ALSEP package, which stands for Apollo
Lunar Surface Experiments Package, was
designed to do. The results from these experiments agree
with one another and with the data collected from both
previous and subsequent experiments designed to measure a
variety of properties of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and their
interplay.
The fact that we have the data from these experiments, and
that many of
them (and their successors on later Apollo missions and
lunar lander missions) are still operational or otherwise in
use today, provide us with extremely strong evidence that we
did, in fact, land on the Moon.
This image, from January 31, 1971, shows sunrise from Alan
Shepard's 12
o'clock pan taken near the Lunar Module at the start of
EVA-1 (moonwalk). Without the Sun glare, we can see some
detail on the Cone-Crater ridge. The flag, S-Band antenna,
ladder, and the LRRR (Laser
Ranging Retroreflector) are all located in the west footpad.
The MET (Modular Equipment Transporter) has not been
deployed and is still folded up on the MESA (Modular
Equipment Stowage Assembly).
4.) We have returned and analyzed samples from the Moon,
learning unprecedented amounts about lunar geology and the
Moon's history in the
process. One of the primary goals of the Apollo mission was
to collect rocks from the lunar surface and return them to
Earth for laboratory analysis.
Through this endeavor, we learned that the Moon and Earth,
based on the
isotope ratios of the elements present, likely share a
common origin, which was likely caused by a cataclysmic
impact approximately 50 million
years after the formation of the Solar System. Originally
formulated as
the Giant Impact Hypothesis, this has now evolved to
describe a new type
of structure called a synestia, which generalized the Giant
Impact scenario to better describe the full suite of
observables. Without the Apollo missions, we might never
have uncovered the critical evidence supporting this
scenario.
A synestia will consist of a mixture of vaporized material
from both proto-Earth and the impactor, which forms a large
moon inside of it from
the coalescence of moonlets. This is a general scenario
capable of creating one single, large moon with the physical
and chemical properties we observe ours to have.
S. J. LOCK ET AL., J. GEOPHYS RESEARCH, 123, 4 (2018), P.
910-951
But there wasn't just a single mission, and the various
Apollo missions
landed at different sites, enabling us to sample the
properties of the lunar soil at a variety of locations. The
final two astronauts to ever walk on the Moon, Cernan and
Schmitt, ran into quite a surprise when they did. Schmitt,
the lone civilian-astronaut (and only scientist) to travel
to the Moon, was often described as the most business-like
of all
the astronauts. Which is why it must have been such a shock to hear him
Oh, hey! Wait a minute
 THERE IS ORANGE SOIL! It’s all
ov
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
er! I stirred
Post by a425couple
it up with my feet!
The dull, grey lunar soil you’re used to seeing — that
we
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
’re all used to
Post by a425couple
seeing — in one particular spot was only a very thin
veneer, cove
ring a
Post by a425couple
rich, orange landscape beneath.
The orange soil, at the lower right of the image, really
stands out when
compared to the colorations visible on the rest of the Moon. Apollo 17,
perhaps because they had a geoscientist as one of their
moonwalkers, was
able to spot this geological oddity that taught us so much
about the Moon's origin and composition.
Like any good scientist, or any good explorer, for that
matter, Cernan and Schmitt took pictures, collected data,
and brought samples back to Earth for further analysis. What
could cause orange soil on the Moon, perhaps the most
featureless of all the large, airless rocks in our Solar
System?
What the analysis back on Earth revealed was fantastic: this
was volcanic glass. What occurred was that molten lava from
the interior of
the Moon erupted, some 3 to 4 billion years ago, up above
the airless surface and into the vacuum of space. As the
lava became exposed to the
vacuum, it separated out into tiny fragments and froze,
forming tiny beads of volcanic glass in orange and black
colors. (The tin in some of
the fragments is what gives the orange color.)
Olivine inclusions found in lunar samples have a
spectacularly high water concentration of 1,200 ppm. This is
remarkable, because it's the same exact concentration as the
water found in terrestrial (Earth-based)
olivine inclusions, pointing to a common origin for the
Earth and the Moo
n.
Post by a425couple
E.H. HAURI ET AL., SCIENCE. 2011 JUL 8;333(6039):213–5
In 2011, reanalysis of those samples found evidence that
water was included in the volcanic eruption: with
concentrations of water in the glass beads that were formed
50 times as great as the expected dryness of the Moon.
Olivine inclusions showed water present in concentrations up
to 1,200 parts-per-million. Most remarkably, the lunar
samples we've found have indicated that Earth and the Moon
have a common origin, consistent with
a giant impact that occurred only a few tens of millions of
years into the birth of our Solar System. Without direct
samples, obtained by the Apollo missions and brought back to
Earth, we never would have been able
to draw such a startling, but spectacular, conclusion.
A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972 shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment
from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the
boulder, allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion
acting on lunar rocks. A NASA picture taken on May 5, 1972
shows a close-up view or 'mug shot'
of Apollo 16 lunar sample no. 68815, a dislodged fragment
from a parent
boulder. A fillet-soil sample was taken close to the
boulder, allowing for study of the type and rate of erosion
acting on lunar rocks. AFP / GETTY IMAGES
There are many different lines of evidence that point to
humanity's presence on the Moon. We landed there and can see
the evidence, directly, when we look with the appropriate
resolution. We have extraordinary amounts of evidence,
ranging from eyewitness testimony to
the data record tracking the missions to photographs
documenting the trips, all supporting the fact that we
landed and walked on the lunar surface. We have a slew of
scientific instruments that were installed, took data, and a
few of which can still be seen and used today. And finally,
we've brought back lunar samples and learned about the
Moon's history, composition, and likely origin from it.
If you choose to be a doubter, that's your call: no one can
take your own freedom of choice away from you. But if you
follow the evidence, and
that's what science compels us to do, the only doubts that
remain are completely unreasonable. We really did land on
the Moon, and this is the
science to back it up!
Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my
other work here. Ethan Siegel
Ethan Siegel Contributor
I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist, author, and science
communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various
colleges. I have won numerous
awards for science writing si... Read More
Starts With A Bang
Starts With A Bang Contributor Group
Starts With A Bang is dedicated to exploring the story of
what we know about the Universe as well as how we know it,
with a focus on physics, astronomy, and the scientif...
Read More
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was
disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years
ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well
have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that
people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on
the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time.
And they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it
would have taken more money and better technology than actually
going did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
Also, people seem to forget that we were in a space race with
the Soviets. Hams may be able to D/F spacecraft, but the Soviets
certainly could. If the USSR could have shown that the US
program was a fraud, they certainly would have.
Unless they, too, were/are part of the conspiracy.

There's literlly *no* evidence you can possibly offer that will not
be, in the minds of the delusional, proof of hte conspiracy. If you
flew them to the landing site in person, they'd claim you set it
all up as part of the ongoing conspiracy.

The idea of a conspiracy aimed at them makes them feel important,
that so much effort is put into fooling them, and that is *far*
more important to some people than reality.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-07 01:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
The idea of a conspiracy aimed at them makes them feel important,
that so much effort is put into fooling them, and that is *far*
more important to some people than reality.
Alas, you're right.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 03:42:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
The idea of a conspiracy aimed at them makes them feel important,
that so much effort is put into fooling them, and that is *far*
more important to some people than reality.
Alas, you're right.
I usually am, especially when the subject is the stupidity of the
human race.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 03:44:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
I usually am, especially when the subject is the stupidity of the
human race.
On that subject, of course, you're in good company.

"There are two things that are infinite: the Universe, and human stupidity. And
I'm not too sure about the Universe." - Albert Einstein

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 03:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
I usually am, especially when the subject is the stupidity of
the human race.
On that subject, of course, you're in good company.
"There are two things that are infinite: the Universe, and human
stupidity. And I'm not too sure about the Universe." - Albert
Einstein
Which Einstein never said.

So, case in point.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 03:58:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
I usually am, especially when the subject is the stupidity of
the human race.
On that subject, of course, you're in good company.
"There are two things that are infinite: the Universe, and human
stupidity. And I'm not too sure about the Universe." - Albert
Einstein
Which Einstein never said.
So, case in point.
I had never thought that *this* quote needed investigating! But of course, Google quickly confirmed you:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/04/universe-einstein/

...the origin is a book by Frederick S. Perls, where he wrote

it is not surprising to learn that a great astronomer said: “Two things are
infinite, as far as we know – the universe and human stupidity.” To-day we know
that this statement is not quite correct. Einstein has proved that the universe
is limited.

So collapsing the quote and attributing it to Einstein made it shorter for
purposes of repetition. Except that Perls *himself* performed the
transformation, which is surprising.

Pity that Alexandre Dumas was not a noted astronomer.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 04:34:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Found a real quote from Einstein, from a 1931 speech he gave to students at the California Institute of Technology:

Why does this magnificent applied science which saves work and makes life easier
bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not yet
learned to make sensible use of it. In war it serves that we may poison and
mutilate each other. In peace it has made our lives hurried and uncertain. Instead
of freeing us in great measure from spiritually exhausting labor, it has made men
into slaves of machinery, who for the most part complete their monotonous long
day's work with disgust and must continually tremble for their poor rations.

Now, there is something I agree with.

I don't think that means that we "shouldn't" use science to make weapons of war.
As long as we can't stop the _other fellow_ from making war, the countries that
believe in human freedom, and in not committing aggression, must be the ones
that are stronger.

So there isn't some magic formula to apply science more sensibly that one human
community could unilaterally apply that would end the misuse of science for war.

But I think the outlook for the use of science in peace is brighter.

The obvious idea that suggests itself over and over for dealing with that is
adopting some sort of socialism. But history shows us that demagogues who
promise the poor they will rob the rich on their behalf never enhance human
freedom.

Can we more soberly improve our economic system and make it serve us better?

I think we can. In countries like the United States, endowed with vast natural
resources, there is simply no excuse for widespread poverty.

The people of a nation have the ability to work. If some of them are idled by
unemployment, the wealth of the nation is decreased, because a valuable input is
wasted.

Unemployment means that someone does not have the opportunity to translate his labor into wealth for himself. This exists when a country is so populated that there is no longer empty land for homesteading, when people can't feed themselves by going into the forests to hunt, and so on. Instead, what was once provided by Nature is now provided by capital.

This is what has led to theories, like the "labor theory of value", that claim
that capital should not be permitted to earn any rewards - that all the value
created by production should go exclusively to laborers, so that there is enough
money to buy what is produced.

However, capital goods are among the things made by workers - and capital
results from people saving what they earned from labor. So the free enterprise
system that lets people earn more with the tools they've bought doesn't create
some voracious money sink.

Making Capital the Rodney Dangerfield of production does not lead to a solution.

One does not need the economic totalitarianism of socialism to avoid the
economic anarchy we have now that has led to mass unemployment.

We simply need to govern the economy to a reasonable extent.

That means taking control of the nation's borders. There is a voracious money
sink in operation in plain sight. The Western industrialized countries, with
convertible currencies, are, by the treaties of the current trade regime,
prevented from raising tariffs.

So if cheap imports encourage the people of a country, as individuals,
rationally buying what is cheapest with their limited wages, to lead the country
to spend more on imports than it earns on exports... the value of the currency
falls, or otherwise corrections must be made that throw millions out of work.

If, instead, the economy accurately conveyed the 'information' that foreign
exchange is scarce, strictly limited by what is earned from exports, while
currency used within the domestic economy is plentiful, limited only by
available labor and resources - then, if a world economic collapse took away
demand for exports, a country's domestic economy could go on humming vigorously,
without any need for anyone to constrain it in order to reduce imports.

Imports would be reduced automatically by their being less foreign exchange in
circulation.

So basically you would use paper money to buy American - but to buy anything
from another country, you would have to have gold coin to pay for it.

Donald J. Trump at least began to acknowledge this truth, which is instinctively
obvious to many working men, however anathema it is to big business and economic
theorists.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-07 09:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Technological improvement in farming means that we don't
all have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farming
is tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.

Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway and
we should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they may
be considered to have lost the argument.
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 18:21:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Technological improvement in farming means that we don't
all have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farming
is tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.
Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway and
we should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they may
be considered to have lost the argument.
If they've lived past the age of 30 or so, they certainly have.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-07 19:43:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Technological improvement in farming means that we don't
all have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farming
is tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.
Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway and
we should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they may
be considered to have lost the argument.
Just ask them to lead the cave bear hunt.

Lynn
Thomas Koenig
2019-07-07 20:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Technological improvement in farming means that we don't
all have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farming
is tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.
Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway and
we should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they may
be considered to have lost the argument.
Just ask them to lead the cave bear hunt.
Forsyth argues in "A Short History of Drunkenness" that humans
became farmers because the wanted to get drunk, which means that
they needed a steady supply of carbohydrates, which means that
they needed to become farmers. You might argue that he is not a
historian, but I find the idea quite convincing.

So, make that "beer hunt", then.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-07 20:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Carnegie
Technological improvement in farming means that we don't
all have to be farmers for everybody to be fed. Farming
is tough. Some people seem to enjoy it; good for you.
Some people argue that farming is a mistake anyway and
we should have stayed hunter-gatherers. I think they may
be considered to have lost the argument.
Just ask them to lead the cave bear hunt.
Forsyth argues in "A Short History of Drunkenness" that humans
became farmers because the wanted to get drunk, which means that
they needed a steady supply of carbohydrates, which means that
they needed to become farmers. You might argue that he is not a
historian, but I find the idea quite convincing.
So, make that "beer hunt", then.
Or the farmer might be willing to trade some beer for some cave bear
from the survivors of the cave bear hunt.

Lynn
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-07 04:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
I usually am, especially when the subject is the stupidity of the
human race.
On that subject, of course, you're in good company.
"There are two things that are infinite: the Universe, and human stupidity. And
I'm not too sure about the Universe." - Albert Einstein
There's also

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has
a longer shelf life."
--Frank Zappa
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
a425couple
2019-07-07 16:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-
apollo-mo
on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Post by a425couple
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief
that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did
come across somebody who told me it could very well have been a
hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that people have
measured the distance to laser reflectors left on the moon by
astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time. And
they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it would
have taken more money and better technology than actually going
did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
HOLLY MOLLEY Ninapenda!

You complain about my long messages,
why didn't you trim it down a bit?

Oh, a dirge for all the wasted electrons.
Gone, lost, wasted. Sob!
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 18:24:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:11 PM UTC+1, a425couple
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-th
e- apollo-mo
on-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Post by a425couple
58,553 viewsJun 25, 2019, 02:00am
Yes, The Apollo Moon Landings Really Did Happen
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was
disbelief that anybody was really skeptical, but a few years
ago I did come across somebody who told me it could very well
have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious. I told him that
people have measured the distance to laser reflectors left on
the moon by astronauts, but I doubt if I convinced him.
There were millions of ham operators listening in at the time.
And they *can* tell where the signal is coming from. Faking it
would have taken more money and better technology than actually
going did.
Some people are just *stupid*.
HOLLY MOLLEY Ninapenda!
You complain about my long messages,
why didn't you trim it down a bit?
I'm an asshole. If this is news to you, take your meds.
Post by a425couple
Oh, a dirge for all the wasted electrons.
Gone, lost, wasted. Sob!
They had it coming.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Bice
2019-07-07 02:33:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
My first reaction to the stories of Apollo hoaxes was disbelief that anybod=
y was really skeptical, but a few years ago I did come across somebody who =
told me it could very well have been a hoax, and appeared to be serious.
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moon
landings were fake.

He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to start
watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.

-- Bob
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 03:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moon
landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to start
watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 03:45:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that
the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed
to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 03:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that
the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed
to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.

IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator. However, I think it's
highly premature to conclude that everyone who voted for Trump believes in
conspiracy theories and so on.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 07:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth
taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid is
just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had a
truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that everyone
who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted *against*
Trump does, though.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2019-07-07 11:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had a
truth serum, he would, too.
I'm aware that Rush Limbaugh identified that as his true profession, so I won't
deny that's possible. I have had a hard time thinking of Ann Coulter as anything
else, as well.

John Savard
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 18:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, July 7, 2019 at 1:57:41 AM UTC-6, Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had
a truth serum, he would, too.
I'm aware that Rush Limbaugh identified that as his true
profession, so I won't deny that's possible. I have had a hard
time thinking of Ann Coulter as anything else, as well.
Pretty much all outrage monkey political pundits on all sides of
the political spectrum are, in the end, entertainers, not to be
taken seriously.

Actors say what they're paid to say.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2019-07-07 17:45:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth
taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid is
just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had a
truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that everyone
who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted *against*
Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 18:25:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid is
just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had
a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due entirely
to their own deranged mental condition.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2019-07-07 20:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid is
just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you had
a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due entirely
to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.

And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!

:-)
Ninapenda Jibini
2019-07-07 22:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
Post by Alan Baker
:-)
Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration


"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Alan Baker
2019-07-08 01:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.

The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.

Must I provide a quote and a link?

:-)
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-08 01:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
Alan Baker
2019-07-08 05:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
Of course he reads...

...and you can tell exactly when he gets to the stage where he has
absolutely nothing.

:-)
J. Clarke
2019-07-08 10:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
I'm but Terry, while he is a mean-spirited curmudgeonly steaming sack
of shit, is not _stupid_. Trump is _stupid_.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 15:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I'm but Terry,
Apparently, Alan is so stupid than reading his posts makes other
people stupid.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Robert Carnegie
2019-07-08 18:34:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
I'm but Terry, while he is a mean-spirited curmudgeonly steaming sack
of shit, is not _stupid_. Trump is _stupid_.
Why do I have to keep telling people: Donald Trump
is not as stupid as he seems. Just... perverse.
J. Clarke
2019-07-09 00:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
I'm but Terry, while he is a mean-spirited curmudgeonly steaming sack
of shit, is not _stupid_. Trump is _stupid_.
Why do I have to keep telling people: Donald Trump
is not as stupid as he seems. Just... perverse.
He could be exceedingly stupid and still not be as stupid as he seems.
Alan Baker
2019-07-09 00:48:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 11:34:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 7 Jul 2019 18:33:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced
that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own
conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all. Stupid
is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy theories
and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see the
inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as you
were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
The report SPECIFICALLY said that it does not exonerate Trump.
Must I provide a quote and a link?
:-)
For heaven's sake, Alan. "Terry" /is/ Donald Trump.
And he doesn't read. He isn't reading this.
He having not done will reply so.
I'm but Terry, while he is a mean-spirited curmudgeonly steaming sack
of shit, is not _stupid_. Trump is _stupid_.
Why do I have to keep telling people: Donald Trump
is not as stupid as he seems. Just... perverse.
He could be exceedingly stupid and still not be as stupid as he seems.
Again... ...wish I could "Like" Usenet posts.

:-)
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 15:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
He having not done will reply so.
Can somebody translate that into sane people language? Is it missing
some words?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-08 15:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 9:45:45 PM UTC-6, Ninapenda
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-6, Bice
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was
convinced that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your
own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.
Stupid is just as good a reason.
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy
theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see
the inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as
you were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
Your masters told you to say that.
Post by Alan Baker
:-)
Pretending you're kidding makes you look retarded.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2019-07-10 00:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-6, Bice
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was
convinced that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really
needed to start watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your
own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.
Stupid is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if you
had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy
theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see
the inside of the White House for at least a generation, due
entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as
you were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
Your masters told you to say that.
Nope. The report LITERALLY says it:

'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President
committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'

Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?
Quadibloc
2019-07-10 06:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President
committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is* exoneration. Donald Trump
said so himself!

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 19:01:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller
report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*
exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!
I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the concept
of constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Quadibloc
2019-07-12 21:23:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller
report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*
exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!
I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the concept
of constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,
merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood my
post.

That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity to
present, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would be
unable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find such
evidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.

John Savard
o***@gmail.com
2019-07-13 00:48:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*
exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!
I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the concept
of constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,
merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood my
post.
That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity to
present, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would be
unable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find such
evidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.
John Savard
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC -- would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so. All that is required is an absence of guilt.

WTF has happened to logic ?
Alan Baker
2019-07-13 19:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller
report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*
exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!
I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the concept
of constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,
merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood my
post.
That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity to
present, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would be
unable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find such
evidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.
John Savard
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC -- would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so. All that is required is an absence of guilt.
Literally no one in the media has said or even implied that that I've seen.
Post by o***@gmail.com
WTF has happened to logic ?
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 21:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.

That is a distinction that seems lost on some.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-14 21:22:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:00:36 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
Quadibloc
2019-07-14 21:33:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other women
in Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong direction
than those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.

Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and steals
much. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that she
sincerely believes them.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-14 22:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other women
in Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong direction
than those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.
Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and steals
much. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that she
sincerely believes them.
And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is a
leash.
Titus G
2019-07-15 03:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike
three other women in Congress - at least one person whose efforts
might be in a more wrong direction than those of Donald Trump does
not need to be worried about.
Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies,
cheats, and steals much. Some of her statements are untrue, but I
see no reason to doubt that she sincerely believes them.
And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is a
leash.
With the US wearing the collar?
Epstein invested in a startup headed by Ehud Barak. Haaretz 2015.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 18:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other women
in Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong direction
than those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.
Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and steals
much. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that she
sincerely believes them.
And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is a
leash.
Yup. Otherwise Israel would have nuked their neighbors by now.

Lynn
h***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 14:59:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:33:17 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Or one who will lie, cheat, and steal in the correct direction.
Honorable people do not do well in politics.
As Ilhan Omar actually wasn't born in the United States - unlike three other women
in Congress - at least one person whose efforts might be in a more wrong direction
than those of Donald Trump does not need to be worried about.
Although she does not seem to be the kind of person who lies, cheats, and steals
much. Some of her statements are untrue, but I see no reason to doubt that she
sincerely believes them.
And she is a fool who doesn't understand that US aid to Israel is a
leash.
Yup. Otherwise Israel would have nuked their neighbors by now.
Yeah, nuking people close to you is always a great idea...
o***@gmail.com
2019-07-14 23:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
J. Clarke
2019-07-14 23:53:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
o***@gmail.com
2019-07-14 23:56:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.

He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
J. Clarke
2019-07-15 00:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.
He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
Quadibloc
2019-07-15 02:24:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre Elliot
Trudeau.

Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as President
would also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and the
energy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former without
even having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages been
taken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-07-15 03:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 19:24:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre Elliot
Trudeau.
Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as President
would also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and the
energy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former without
even having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages been
taken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)
The big problem with Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis was that he
didn't put someone in charge who knew what they were doing and then
back him or her up. So it ended up a huge boondoggle with every
service being part of the show.
h***@gmail.com
2019-07-15 09:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
If you want a condescending politician, you should look at Pierre Elliot
Trudeau.
Carter had the very bad luck to be stuck with problems that others as President
would also have found difficult to resolve: the Iran hostage crisis, and the
energy crisis. (Although a different President did resolve the former without
even having to do anything beyond getting elected; but had the hostages been
taken while he was in office, it might have been more difficult.)
Reagan's campaign manager travelled secretly to Madrid, there's suggestions that he was negotiating with the Iranians to hold off on releasing the hostages.
His travel is confirmed by a cable from the Madrid Embassy.
Then, after the campaign manager was installed as the director of the CIA, he gave the green light for Israeli weapon sales to Iran...

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-bird-conspiracies-october-surprises-20170620-story.html
Kevrob
2019-07-15 02:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.
He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
He wasn't ignorant, but he fell to a candidate whose policy goals,
even if you disagreed with them, were easily grasped by an electorate
that wanted something different. Carter was more about process than
policy, and his policies didn't get the job done.

Also, the "misery index" - add the inflation rate and the
unemployment rate - was either side of 20 during 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

People voted their pocketbooks.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-07-15 03:42:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.
He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
He wasn't ignorant, but he fell to a candidate whose policy goals,
even if you disagreed with them, were easily grasped by an electorate
that wanted something different. Carter was more about process than
policy, and his policies didn't get the job done.
Also, the "misery index" - add the inflation rate and the
unemployment rate - was either side of 20 during 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
People voted their pocketbooks.
As an inspirational speaker Carter was about a zero. I remember him
going on and on and on about "malaise". OK, Jimbo, we _know_ there's
"malaise", now tell us how to _FIX_ it.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 18:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.
He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run a
nuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarine
captains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and he
had people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-15 18:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run a
nuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarine
captains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and he
had people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.
You should really try to get your facts straight; and learn to read
with comprehension. Running a nuclear reactor and conning a [nuclear] submarine
aren't the same thing.

16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of
Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office) From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953
he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion
plants for naval vessels." From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction
to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in
setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear
propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).

President Carter inherited a shitty economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.

He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.

He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 18:55:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 7/15/2019 1:33 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
with the enemies of the USA. One of the first things that Ronald Reagan
did was to get rid of the classification system for "old oil" and "new
oil". Within 24 months, the USA was awash in new oil and natural gas
sources. The prices of both crashed in the early 1980s, I know this, I
was there looking for a job with thousands of other engineering graduates.

Nor did Jimmy Carter have the courage to deal properly with Iran. Look
at Ross Perot, he hired mercenaries to go retrieve his hundreds of
people from within Iran and was mostly successful. For those who do not
know, Ross Perot's people were setting up a Social Security system in
Iran for the Shah of Iran. Jimmy Carter could not even give the
military adequate resources to retrieve our hostages.

Until Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.
Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Carter
sadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-15 19:07:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
baseless accusations elided.

See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,
you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.

The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,
incorrect.
Lynn McGuire
2019-07-15 20:11:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
baseless accusations elided.
See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,
you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.
The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,
incorrect.
Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into the
incompetent Department of Energy.

Reply and make more baseless accusations all you want, this conversation
is over for me. Your inability to deal with the truth is amazing.

Lynn
Scott Lurndal
2019-07-15 20:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
baseless accusations elided.
See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,
you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.
The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,
incorrect.
Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into the
incompetent Department of Energy.
You haven't pointed to any facts, just your opinions. When you actually
post some facts, we can discuss them.

FWIW, your ranking of the worse presidents doesn't match that of the
professionals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

(In which President Carter (and President Obama) significantly outrank President George W
Bush; Carter outranks Coolidge, Harding and Hoover, all Republicans).

Trump, of course, is at the very bottom of the list.
Kevrob
2019-07-15 22:32:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
baseless accusations elided.
See, aside from eliding your inaccuracies about his engineering background,
you're attempting to convey your opinions as facts.
The idea that a lack of courage was the problem is, to put it kindly,
incorrect.
Wow, delusional. The proof is in the facts. I did not even go into the
incompetent Department of Energy.
You haven't pointed to any facts, just your opinions. When you actually
post some facts, we can discuss them.
FWIW, your ranking of the worse presidents doesn't match that of the
professionals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
(In which President Carter (and President Obama) significantly outrank President George W
Bush; Carter outranks Coolidge, Harding and Hoover, all Republicans).
Trump, of course, is at the very bottom of the list.
Those lists are made of academics biased against free marketers,
else Coolidge would be miles ahead.

I forgot to slag that racist, anti-civil liberites warmonger
Woodrow Wilson, who didn't even have the class to resign when
he was too sick to do the job.* He's a favorite of the statist
professoriate.

* Resegregated Federal employment, income tax, Federal Reserve,
started Prohibition as a "wartime measure" before the drys in
his party could pass the Volsted Act over his veto, The Palmer Raids,
signed the Harriosn Act, presided over a 3-year recession. Quixotic
attempt to get his 14 points accepted at Versailles, contributing to
the bad peace that gave rise to the Nazis.


See: Robert W Merry n THE NATIONAL INTEREST

https://preview.tinyurl.com/Wilson-Bah-Merry OR

https://tinyurl.com/Wilson-Bah-Merry which resolves to:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-worst-president-ever-title-belongs-woodrow-wilson-24137

Kevin R
David DeLaney
2019-07-16 12:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
FWIW, your ranking of the worse presidents doesn't match that of the
professionals.
And I think it's widely accepted that he's been the greatest of the recent
EX-Presidents...

Dave, though Obama continues to accumulate awesome-rating
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Kevrob
2019-07-15 21:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Until Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.
Oh, be fair. Andrew Johnson sucked. James Buchanan sucked.
Polk got a lot done, but picking a fight with Mexico was
not exactly our shining moment. Harding had corruption
all through his advisers, and either was clueless about it or
knew full well what was going on and did nothing. Pre-War
FDR was awful. Roosevelt II was a pretty decent war president,
though, except for being taken in by Stalin.

Neither Obama nor Carter were as bad as all that.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Carter
sadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.
Some of his ex-presidential foreign policy meddling
I could have done without.

Kevin R
h***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 15:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
...
President Carter inherited a s****** economy, an incipient externally imposed
energy crisis, the shell of the post-vietnam military complete with incompetent
leadership, and his predecessor's unfortunate meddling in the middle east.
He did the best he could (and certainly better than his prececessors would have)
given the circumstances.
He's a far greater man than Lynn can ever aspire to be.
Jimmy Carter did not have the courage to fix the economy nor to deal
with the enemies of the USA. One of the first things that Ronald Reagan
did was to get rid of the classification system for "old oil" and "new
oil". Within 24 months, the USA was awash in new oil and natural gas
sources. The prices of both crashed in the early 1980s, I know this, I
was there looking for a job with thousands of other engineering graduates.
You also "know" that gravity requires rotation...
Post by Lynn McGuire
Nor did Jimmy Carter have the courage to deal properly with Iran.
There's suggestions that there were negotiatins with Reagan's campaign manager to delay any deal.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Look
at Ross Perot, he hired mercenaries to go retrieve his hundreds of
people from within Iran and was mostly successful.
Um, there were 2 of his employees who were in jail.
He hired about 10 people as a backup and they were actually released by an uprising rather than the mercenaries.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-07-09-9203020097-story.html
Post by Lynn McGuire
For those who do not
know, Ross Perot's people were setting up a Social Security system in
Iran for the Shah of Iran.
Yes, and a couple of them were arrested for alleged corruption
There were also problems with the implementation (the new system was slower to complete the process than the old way)...
Note that this occurred under the Shah who was a US ally.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Jimmy Carter could not even give the
military adequate resources to retrieve our hostages.
Getting into a secured location in a foreign country and getting out with 52 hostages is a rather different situation from picking up 2 people from the streets after somebody else has already broken them out.

The actual forces committed were
93 delta soldiers
13 special forces soldiers
12 rangers
15 people who spoke the local language and were largely going to be truck drivers.

8 helicopters for transport
12 USAF planes

The plan was generated by the military and aborted when hardware failures happened and 8 helicopters was reduced to 5 with a near certainty of more losses.

After this the hostages were separated and the requirements became completely impractical.
Almost a battalion of troups, over 50 aircraft and all sorts of new approaches were being developed.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Until Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.
Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Carter
sadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.
You idiot.
h***@gmail.com
2019-07-16 15:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Until Barrack Hussein Obama, Jimmy Carter was our worst president ever.
Being the president of the USA is all about leadership and Jimmy Carter
sadly lacks that. He is a great humanitarian though.
Nice to see that you don't consider ignoring a supreme court decision and indulging in genocide of native americans to justify a lower rating...
J. Clarke
2019-07-15 22:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 13:21:48 -0500, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Post by o***@gmail.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by o***@gmail.com
I find it both outrageous and humorous that the media -- as typified by NBC --
would care that someone needed to "prove innocence". Nobody EVER need do so.
All that is required is an absence of guilt.
For staying out of jail, yes. For being entrusted with a position of vast
responsibility, like that of a Supreme Court justice, or that of President of
the United States, one wants someone one _knows_ one can trust - insofar as that
is even possible, of course.
That is a distinction that seems lost on some.
John Savard
In an atmosphere of no consequences for unsubstantiated allegations -- sometimes being viewed as heroic -- those standards, sadly, no longer exist.
We've seen what happens to an honest man in the White House. Jimmy
Carter lasted one term and accomplished little that had any lasting
effect.
He didn't fail because he was honest.
He failed because he was ignorant and condescending.
I never found Carter to be either. He knew how to grow peanuts, run a
nuclear reactor, and conduct a successful political campaign. That is
not an ignorant person. And I do not recall him ever being
"condescending". He tried too hard to go the other way sometimes. And
he lacked a certain forcefulness that is sometimes needed.
It is my understanding that Jimmy Carter does not know how to run a
nuclear reactor. He was the last of the diesel electric submarine
captains. Three Mile Island happened on his presidential watch and he
had people investigate it. He did not finish nuclear reactor school.
Jimmy Carter was never a "Captain" in any sense, and nuke school was 6
months--he started in March and would have been done in August, while
he left the Navy in October. He was also hands-on involved with a
cleanup of a nuclear meltdown.
m***@sky.com
2019-07-13 04:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Alan Baker
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller report?
But because "innocent until proven guilty", that *is*
exoneration. Donald Trump said so himself!
I realize the sheeple of Canada don't really understand the concept
of constitutional rights, but in the US, we do.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump should be thrown in jail, or even impeached,
merely because he can't prove himself innocent, if that is how you understood my
post.
That the Muller report did not have conclusive proof of illegal activity to
present, however, does not imply that a proper criminal investigation would be
unable to do so. Even if it does reduce the probability that one would find such
evidence. Thus, I fail to see that the term "exonerate" applies.
John Savard
As pointed out in the transcript of Mueller's statement, he justifies some of his non-charging and non-exoneration from the special constitutional position of the President

"The Department’s written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge."

(End quote)
In the context of this, I think it is illuminating that there have been no charges against co-conspirators. There is no equivalent of the Watergate Seven. If Trump _is_ guilty of anything, such as obstruction of justice, it can only be a very limited action, because it is the action of one man (albeit a President) who apparently could not get a single person to conspire with him.

It's also one of the few highlights of the report - a shot across the bows of anybody who might think themselves shielded by the office of the President - the President might be shielded to some extent, but nobody else in that office is.
David DeLaney
2019-07-16 12:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
It's also one of the few highlights of the report - a shot across the bows of
anybody who might think themselves shielded by the office of the President -
the President might be shielded to some extent, but nobody else in that
office is.
And even if they were somehow, the turnover rate for non-relatives of Trump
"in that office" has been astounding.

Dave, as has the deluge of after-serving tell-all books
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2019-07-11 19:01:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 2019-07-08 8:35 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
om
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-6, Bice
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was
convinced that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I
really needed to start watching Glenn Beck.
So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.
Stupid is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if
you had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy
theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see
the inside of the White House for at least a generation,
due entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as
you were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
Your masters told you to say that.
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller
report?
From you, no I do not. In fact, that you claim it is is very nearly
conclusive proof that it isn't, since literally everything you post
is lies.

Are you willing to agree that Lynn was right in his claims that
there are tens of millions of illegals in the US, and tends of
thousand more come here every month?
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
Alan Baker
2019-07-12 20:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On 2019-07-08 8:35 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
om
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-6, Bice
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was
convinced that the moon landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I
really needed to start watching Glenn Beck.
So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth
watching.
There's loonier out there.
True, but one doesn't have to be the looniest to not be
worth taking seriously.
Entirely true. One does not have to be looney at all.
Stupid is just as good a reason.
Post by Quadibloc
IIRC, however, Glenn Back is a conservative commentator.
I'd call him more an entertainer, and I suspect that if
you had a truth serum, he would, too.
Post by Quadibloc
However, I think it's highly premature to conclude that
everyone who voted for Trump believes in conspiracy
theories and so on.
It's becoming increasingly clear that everyone who voted
*against* Trump does, though.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
It is, indeed, quite funny, how the Democrats will not see
the inside of the White House for at least a generation,
due entirely to their own deranged mental condition.
Riiiiight.
And the Mueller report "completely exonerated" Trump, too!
As, in fact, it did, yet. You're hallucinating otherwise, as
you were told to by your masters.
No, actually.
Your masters told you to say that.
'Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'
Do you accept that that is a direct quote from the Mueller
report?
From you, no I do not. In fact, that you claim it is is very nearly
conclusive proof that it isn't, since literally everything you post
is lies.
Read it and weep:

Page 214:

'Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the
facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal
standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence
we obtained about the President?s actions and intent presents dif?cult
issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that
the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.'

<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report.html>

I guess your definition of "literally everything" differs...

...from everyone else's.

:-)
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-07-07 04:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Bice
About 15 years ago I worked with a guy who was convinced that the moon
landings were fake.
He also told me on an almost daily basis that I really needed to start
watching Glenn Beck. So...draw your own conclusions.
I guess I'd conclude that Glenn Beck wasn't worth watching.
I googled him. Definitely not worth it.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Bast
2019-07-07 03:00:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Nope,......Fake news also said that Hitlery was going to win the election.
Bast
2019-07-08 00:03:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bast
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Nope,......Fake news also said that Hitlery was going to win the election.
Here's a video for you to watch, and think about. Maybe you can figure it
out for youself.
Or you can continue to let "globalist big brother" tell you what to think

Moon Hoax - Faking Space

Alan Baker
2019-07-08 06:13:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bast
Post by Bast
Post by a425couple
from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/#209129b56a8f
Nope,......Fake news also said that Hitlery was going to win the election.
Here's a video for you to watch, and think about. Maybe you can figure it
out for youself.
Or you can continue to let "globalist big brother" tell you what to think
Moon Hoax - Faking Space
http://youtu.be/KmQIAH3UftQ
LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Loading...