The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Did you know that after 50 years the goverment has to release all information about major events that happened 50 years ago?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
So what will we find out in the next decade or so?
Did an alien spacecraft really crash at Roswell?
Do area 51 know more about UFO's and aliens then they like to admit?
The horrors of the Second World War.
Was the moon landing a hoax?
What about the things we will find out about in about 50 years?
Exactly what info did the Americans get before September 11?
Have the goverment already foiled a major terrorist plot in the UK?
Is Bin Laden still alive or have the US caught him?
Page:
What i will find interesting is when the secrets of the Cold war come out, what things will we know that we previously didn't?
There's all this talk about 'i read this on this website and i read this on another' but me personally i don't trust anything enless it comes from a good fact book or from a respectible tv program from a channel like uk history or something like that!
Belldandy wrote:
> But if, to quote, you think the inforamtion is way over the readers
> head, then doesn't that impy a lack of understanding with the reader ?
I didn't say it was - I said it was trying to be.
> But they do. Look at it this way, how many sites have you looked at
> that refute the conspiracy theory, there are far less and they are
> more detailed than the usual conspiracy ones. Even then, there is
> still not one shred of real hard evidence to say it did not happen,
> and this in a country where a president - Nixon - couldn't keep a
> secret, and nor could Clinton ! On another note, what about the other
> conspiracy that claims the Apollo XI astronauts saw a UFO ?
> Conspiracies multiply like rabbits.
Well if you put it like that there isn't a shred of real hard evidence that it DID happen. And to say "The President can't keep a secret, so he would have definitely blabbed" is a bit of a poor argument.
> Here's a quote that sums up that site:
>
> "The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
>
> But technically it's true, even if you dislike the phrase. If I jump
> up on earth then gravity sends me back, but gravity on the moon is
> lighter so it'd have a different effect. That, whilst being
> scientifically explainable, is weird.
Weird is relative. It's a comparative term. All you can really get from that is that it is different. If I had a red apple and a green apple, would I just look at the green apple and say "weird". No, it would just be different.
You're right - I don't like the phrase, it's completely inappropriate for the circumstances. It shows he's struggling hard to come up with an excuse fast. I wouldn't like it in normal speech, let alone text that could have been thought about. It really shows off his knowledge, doesn't it? "Well, I'm an expert on the surface of the moon, having studied it for years" "And what have you found?" "It's...weird".
> But if, to quote, you think the inforamtion is way over the readers
> head, then doesn't that impy a lack of understanding with the reader ?
I didn't say it was - I said it was trying to be.
> But they do. Look at it this way, how many sites have you looked at
> that refute the conspiracy theory, there are far less and they are
> more detailed than the usual conspiracy ones. Even then, there is
> still not one shred of real hard evidence to say it did not happen,
> and this in a country where a president - Nixon - couldn't keep a
> secret, and nor could Clinton ! On another note, what about the other
> conspiracy that claims the Apollo XI astronauts saw a UFO ?
> Conspiracies multiply like rabbits.
Well if you put it like that there isn't a shred of real hard evidence that it DID happen. And to say "The President can't keep a secret, so he would have definitely blabbed" is a bit of a poor argument.
> Here's a quote that sums up that site:
>
> "The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
>
> But technically it's true, even if you dislike the phrase. If I jump
> up on earth then gravity sends me back, but gravity on the moon is
> lighter so it'd have a different effect. That, whilst being
> scientifically explainable, is weird.
Weird is relative. It's a comparative term. All you can really get from that is that it is different. If I had a red apple and a green apple, would I just look at the green apple and say "weird". No, it would just be different.
You're right - I don't like the phrase, it's completely inappropriate for the circumstances. It shows he's struggling hard to come up with an excuse fast. I wouldn't like it in normal speech, let alone text that could have been thought about. It really shows off his knowledge, doesn't it? "Well, I'm an expert on the surface of the moon, having studied it for years" "And what have you found?" "It's...weird".
Blank wrote:
>. Anyway, I visited
> "Bad Astronomy" and guess what? I didn't like it. I found
> the page referring to the moon landing was trying to put information
> way over the reader's head, so it humbled them and made them dopily
> think that the author must be right.
But if, to quote, you think the inforamtion is way over the readers head, then doesn't that impy a lack of understanding with the reader ? Of those who claim the landing a hoax, how many know the real hard science behind the claims, and more than just a list of points like "The flag is moving - there is no wind on the moon". It's just repeating what someone else has said isn't it ? Much of the conspiracy theory was started by authors who have made a nice living from it as well. Besides, bad astronomy isn'tthe only site refuting the conspiracy theorists points.
>
> I've dealt with people like this before. And more often than not
> they're talking crap. Frankly I thought a lot of the arguments weren't
> satisfactory, or didn't deal with the issue.
But they do. Look at it this way, how many sites have you looked at that refute the conspiracy theory, there are far less and they are more detailed than the usual conspiracy ones. Even then, there is still not one shred of real hard evidence to say it did not happen, and this in a country where a president - Nixon - couldn't keep a secret, and nor could Clinton ! On another note, what about the other conspiracy that claims the Apollo XI astronauts saw a UFO ? Conspiracies multiply like rabbits.
~~Belldandy~~
> Here's a quote that sums up that site:
> "The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
But technically it's true, even if you dislike the phrase. If I jump up on earth then gravity sends me back, but gravity on the moon is lighter so it'd have a different effect. That, whilst being scientifically explainable, is weird.
>. Anyway, I visited
> "Bad Astronomy" and guess what? I didn't like it. I found
> the page referring to the moon landing was trying to put information
> way over the reader's head, so it humbled them and made them dopily
> think that the author must be right.
But if, to quote, you think the inforamtion is way over the readers head, then doesn't that impy a lack of understanding with the reader ? Of those who claim the landing a hoax, how many know the real hard science behind the claims, and more than just a list of points like "The flag is moving - there is no wind on the moon". It's just repeating what someone else has said isn't it ? Much of the conspiracy theory was started by authors who have made a nice living from it as well. Besides, bad astronomy isn'tthe only site refuting the conspiracy theorists points.
>
> I've dealt with people like this before. And more often than not
> they're talking crap. Frankly I thought a lot of the arguments weren't
> satisfactory, or didn't deal with the issue.
But they do. Look at it this way, how many sites have you looked at that refute the conspiracy theory, there are far less and they are more detailed than the usual conspiracy ones. Even then, there is still not one shred of real hard evidence to say it did not happen, and this in a country where a president - Nixon - couldn't keep a secret, and nor could Clinton ! On another note, what about the other conspiracy that claims the Apollo XI astronauts saw a UFO ? Conspiracies multiply like rabbits.
~~Belldandy~~
> Here's a quote that sums up that site:
> "The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
But technically it's true, even if you dislike the phrase. If I jump up on earth then gravity sends me back, but gravity on the moon is lighter so it'd have a different effect. That, whilst being scientifically explainable, is weird.
I don't know about any1 else but i love all these conspiracys, did they didn't they? Also i love hearing the arguments for and against even though on many of the subjects i am a nuetral.
Though one thing i'm not a nuetral on is ufo and life on other planets.
I have read too many books and seen too many programmes giving amazing evidence that aliens have come to our planet, maybe not landing but i also believe Area 51 know loads more on the subject then they say they do?
Though one thing i'm not a nuetral on is ufo and life on other planets.
I have read too many books and seen too many programmes giving amazing evidence that aliens have come to our planet, maybe not landing but i also believe Area 51 know loads more on the subject then they say they do?
Belldandy wrote:
> www.badastronomy.com is a great source for all would be moon
> conspiracy theorists :)
Okay, I'll throw my hat into the ring. I never like to say an argument about conspiracy theories unless I'm in it. Anyway, I visited "Bad Astronomy" and guess what? I didn't like it. I found the page referring to the moon landing was trying to put information way over the reader's head, so it humbled them and made them dopily think that the author must be right.
I've dealt with people like this before. And more often than not they're talking crap. Frankly I thought a lot of the arguments weren't satisfactory, or didn't deal with the issue.
Here's a quote that sums up that site:
"The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
> www.badastronomy.com is a great source for all would be moon
> conspiracy theorists :)
Okay, I'll throw my hat into the ring. I never like to say an argument about conspiracy theories unless I'm in it. Anyway, I visited "Bad Astronomy" and guess what? I didn't like it. I found the page referring to the moon landing was trying to put information way over the reader's head, so it humbled them and made them dopily think that the author must be right.
I've dealt with people like this before. And more often than not they're talking crap. Frankly I thought a lot of the arguments weren't satisfactory, or didn't deal with the issue.
Here's a quote that sums up that site:
"The moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird"
Belldandy wrote:
> No it wouldn't, you've got to either build the craft and ship to the
> moon, or build it on site on the moon, and ship the astronauts up
> there !
In fuel alone they'd save a packet. As with colonising anywhere, certain materials need to be transported first. My point is - if we're not willing to spend the money, why bother at all?
> It was Cold War oneupmanship. You have to bear in mind that we're
> viewing the moon landings from the post Cold War era when we know a
> hell of a lot more about that period. American propoganda after the
> landings hinted at some fantastic stuff that seemed believable because
> America had gone to the moon and back.
What better reason to hoax it?
> Mars makes more sense for a colony as you're cutting about tow months
> travel time for any other missions launched from mars. The main point
> is that no man has walked on Mars
And no man ever will, at least in our lifetime. Whatever your thoughts about the radiation problem faced by those travelling to the moon, a mission to Mars certianly WILL pose the danger of fatal radiation doses.
Unless we discover some miracle material, the shielding required to adequalty protect people on a manned mission to Mars would result in a craft so heavy that current rocket technology would never get off of the ground. Unless we were to construct in space, or on the moon.
Of course, constructing in space will need frequent staff changes, due to the effects of weightlessness on the human body. Such construction would be more feasible on the moon, as there is at least some gravity there, allowing longer working times.
> But why go back, other than to prove it can be done ?
I believe I've already covered that! To prove beyond doubt that we can do it every time, safely, at will. One landing and a botched second attempt do not prove that our methods of putting a man on another celestial body is at all safe, reliable or indeed repeatable.
If you jumped a single bus on a bike, then broke your legs on the second attempt, what would you do? Stick to one bus until you perfected the landing, or go straight to jumping 12 buses because "it's more of a challenge"?
> No it wouldn't, you've got to either build the craft and ship to the
> moon, or build it on site on the moon, and ship the astronauts up
> there !
In fuel alone they'd save a packet. As with colonising anywhere, certain materials need to be transported first. My point is - if we're not willing to spend the money, why bother at all?
> It was Cold War oneupmanship. You have to bear in mind that we're
> viewing the moon landings from the post Cold War era when we know a
> hell of a lot more about that period. American propoganda after the
> landings hinted at some fantastic stuff that seemed believable because
> America had gone to the moon and back.
What better reason to hoax it?
> Mars makes more sense for a colony as you're cutting about tow months
> travel time for any other missions launched from mars. The main point
> is that no man has walked on Mars
And no man ever will, at least in our lifetime. Whatever your thoughts about the radiation problem faced by those travelling to the moon, a mission to Mars certianly WILL pose the danger of fatal radiation doses.
Unless we discover some miracle material, the shielding required to adequalty protect people on a manned mission to Mars would result in a craft so heavy that current rocket technology would never get off of the ground. Unless we were to construct in space, or on the moon.
Of course, constructing in space will need frequent staff changes, due to the effects of weightlessness on the human body. Such construction would be more feasible on the moon, as there is at least some gravity there, allowing longer working times.
> But why go back, other than to prove it can be done ?
I believe I've already covered that! To prove beyond doubt that we can do it every time, safely, at will. One landing and a botched second attempt do not prove that our methods of putting a man on another celestial body is at all safe, reliable or indeed repeatable.
If you jumped a single bus on a bike, then broke your legs on the second attempt, what would you do? Stick to one bus until you perfected the landing, or go straight to jumping 12 buses because "it's more of a challenge"?
As a nuetral i read these arguments for and against arguments like the moon landing being a hoax, and i see a argument for the prposition and i think oh the moon landing probably was a hoax but then i read the arguments against the proposition and i think of course it can't be a hoax then i read more and my view changes with every idea.
My view is you can argue as much as you want but the truth will only come from the people involved i.e NASA, but they are never going to admit it was a hoax, so i guess this is one argument that will never be solved very much like many others, the truth is we live in a world of lies, secrets and deciet.
My view is you can argue as much as you want but the truth will only come from the people involved i.e NASA, but they are never going to admit it was a hoax, so i guess this is one argument that will never be solved very much like many others, the truth is we live in a world of lies, secrets and deciet.
the only benefit of the moon as a base is a launch platform to outer space and not because of the low gravity(although this helps) but mainly because of the rare isotope that exists on the moon in great abundance which would make a great fuel source if the technology can be perfected.
Its a plan but its way off in the future so much so I doubt it will hapen in my life time but hey they said cloning wasnt possible
Its a plan but its way off in the future so much so I doubt it will hapen in my life time but hey they said cloning wasnt possible
Eek I've read all those articles and some have valid points like the rock with a 'c' printed on it(supposedly from one of the many simulations nasa did of the moon that they used).
TBH ive no idea whats true or false any more they both make very good scientific cases and disinformation is rife on both sides.
My personal view is that a human would not be able to make the 2 week trip to the moon without a fatal dose of radiation let alone the return trip as there is a point in space between the moon and earth that has little or no magnetic protection and allows the suns rays to penetrate fully.
this is just my opinion tho
TBH ive no idea whats true or false any more they both make very good scientific cases and disinformation is rife on both sides.
My personal view is that a human would not be able to make the 2 week trip to the moon without a fatal dose of radiation let alone the return trip as there is a point in space between the moon and earth that has little or no magnetic protection and allows the suns rays to penetrate fully.
this is just my opinion tho
Page: