A Physics forum. Physics Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Physics Banter forum » Physics Newsgroups » Physics - General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 10th 03 posted to sci.astro,alt.astronomy,sci.physics
Randy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003


"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...

Nancy is that you?

--
-Randy (OF+)
'Up the stairs.
Into the fire.'


Ads
  #14  
Old November 11th 03 posted to sci.astro,alt.astronomy,sci.physics
Chain Rule
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003


"Dave Typinski" wrote in message
...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, Nathan Jones


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones


The gadgetry we left up there, the Moon rocks here, and all the

recorded mission telemetry and communication does, however, make it
extremely unlikely that the Apollo Moon missions were faked. It
would've cost way more and would've been much more difficult to fake
everything than it did and was to just plain send some guys up there.



I have always wondered that, If this were true, in this day and age of Media
hype and flash in the pan stories, how did they get 100,000 or so people to
Shut the Hell up about it for the past 30 years....

I didn't notice a sudden spike in the mortality rate of the tech sector.....


  #15  
Old November 11th 03 posted to sci.astro,alt.astronomy,sci.physics
Jeff Root
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 745
Default The Greg Hansen FAQ

Edward Green responded to The Hansen FAQ:

Does anyone else get the idea that most of the questions in these
sorts of FAQs have really never been asked at all?


Perhaps you speak of science FAQ's. But I came across an interesting
hole in the FAQ of a cut-rate ISP. Do you provide space on a web
server as a service? One can only answer this, in the negative, by
an exhaustive search on their pages which fails to turn up any info.
I guess theirs was a "FAQWAWL" (frequently asked questions whose
answers we like). Questions whose answers we don't like aren't
"questions".


Do they have giraffes available for rent? Do they give a new
car to each customer switching from another ISP? Do I have a
clean pair of sox I can wear tomorrow?

-- Jeff, frequently asking questions in Minneapolis

..
  #16  
Old November 11th 03 posted to sci.astro,alt.astronomy,sci.physics
The Ghost In The Machine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,201
Default The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003

In sci.physics, Dave Typinski

wrote
on Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:19:11 -0500
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics, Nathan Jones


THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones


[rest snipped]

Beyond the fact we dragged back 382 kg of moon rock,
snip [etc.], there's no proof that we went to the moon.


Unfortunately, conspiracy theorists' minds are hermetically sealed.


And they've lost the key.


The gadgetry we left up there doesn't prove anything. Everything that
was left behind - from corner cubes, to LM descent stages, to EVA
suits, to bags of frozen urine


They bagged it? My brain hurts...though I suppose that's
a little easier to design than ejecting it out of a heated
orifice on the side of the LEM.

(Of course nowadays we'd be expected to bring it *back*;
the EPA gets more stringent every year...)

- *could* have been placed there by
robotic missions. Could've even had EVA suit boots on a rover that
bounced aroud to make the footprints.


Yeah, I've always wanted to bag some urine and send it to the Moon.
For, erm, scientific purposes. Yeah, that's it.

Not to mention a robotic rover which would probably
look like something Acme Whizzbang Gadgets (dedicated to
instantly sending things to coyotes way out in the middle
of nowhere via helicopter or postal truck) would dream
up -- and work about as well; wheels just make much more
sense on a relatively flat surface.

And if they're going to go to all that trouble, why go all the
way to the Moon? They could just as easily go to Sound Stage
3 on a movie lot somewhere, throw around some gray dust,
paint a matte or two, and implant a boot in cement. Voila.

(Of course they'd then have to burn the place down or
something to destroy the evidence afterwards. After all,
what good would a conspiracy theory be with actual evidence
to back it up?)


The gadgetry we left up there, the Moon rocks here, and all the
recorded mission telemetry and communication does, however, make it
extremely unlikely that the Apollo Moon missions were faked. It
would've cost way more and would've been much more difficult to fake
everything than it did and was to just plain send some guys up there.


Not sure about it costing more but it certainly would be way more
pointless. :-)

--
Dave Typinski
http://home.alltel.net/trapezium



--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
  #19  
Old November 11th 03 posted to sci.astro,alt.astronomy,sci.physics
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default The Apollo Moon Hoax FAQ v4.1 November 2003

In message , Jay Windley
writes

"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...


Judging by the number of times he's posted this, he's not just trolling
but spamming. Ignore him.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Physics News Update -- Number 660, November 4, 2003 Sam Wormley Physics - General Discussion 1 November 6th 03 07:05 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ Nathan Jones Physics - General Discussion 12 November 6th 03 05:58 AM
October November 2003 Michael McNeil Physics - General Discussion 0 November 3rd 03 10:31 AM
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE -- Number 656 October 7, 2003 (THE 2003 PHYSICSNOBEL PRIZE) Sam Wormley Physics - General Discussion 1 October 7th 03 05:33 PM
Undeniable Zeno Hoax Hoax Ed Keane III Physics - General Discussion 2 August 19th 03 08:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2008 Physics Banter, part of the NewsgroupBanter project.
The comments are property of their posters.
Credit Card - Compare Credit Cards - Zietuwel - Pay Day Loans - Loans