I wonder if he knows that is a federal crime since the Rock is the property of the people of the US.
Well he was a British citizen working in a British university so it was probably just high treason or something similar.
I wonder if he knows that is a federal crime since the Rock is the property of the people of the US.
So, no response from our student, huh?
Wonder what's taking so long.![]()
No it is perspective. Look at a railroad track some time. The rails will apear convergent but are not actualy convergent.Uneven ground.
This is of course evidence used to show that rail roads are a conspiracy. Everyone knows trains don't actualy exist
Some of the shedows I saw in the film in the opening post are converging at right angles. That cannot be explained by terrain.
Isn't analyzing the pictures a bit risky, as subjectivity and experience in doing so play in. Wouldn't it be much easier just to support your claim they couldn't have made it through the Van Allen Belt?Some of the shedows I saw in the film in the opening post are converging at right angles. That cannot be explained by terrain.
I wonder if he knows that is a federal crime since the Rock is the property of the people of the US.
Isn't analyzing the pictures a bit risky, as subjectivity and experience in doing so play in. Wouldn't it be much easier just to support your claim they couldn't have made it through the Van Allen Belt?
Hi.
I am new to the forum. I just watched a film called "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon." It was my first exposure to moon conspiracies and it was very compelling.
In particular, I found the Van Allen belt evidence very compelling. How did the astronauts survive this given that 27 years later at Chernobyl there were no suits capable of withstanding the radiation from the reactor there?
Thoughts?
ERichardsonOriginally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Isn't analyzing the pictures a bit risky, as subjectivity and experience in doing so play in. Wouldn't it be much easier just to support your claim they couldn't have made it through the Van Allen Belt?
When did I claim that?
f
It's pretty, not being able to remember what you were talking abount inthe first place.
Don't go making specious assertions--you will get called.
irst post, bolding mine--that's when you expressed doubts that they could survive.
These posts:When did I claim that?
<snip>
In particular, I found the Van Allen belt evidence very compelling. How did the astronauts survive this given that 27 years later at Chernobyl there were no suits capable of withstanding the radiation from the reactor there?
<snip>
If they got through the belt in an hour then thats at least 2 hours counting the return journey. The apollo ship itself would provide virtually no protection, it was made of steel, aluminium etc.
<snip>
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://nicholasweiss.com/NASA2.html
Why must I have a qualification to tell someone that I dont agree that the Van Allen belt is non-fatal?
The simple question posed to me was "do you agree it isn't fatal?". My answer is no. What is so hard to understand about that?
Then, do you acknowledge that, within the context of the Apollo missions, that the Van Allen Belt would have been non-fatal to the astronauts travelling to the Moon?Thanks for proving I made no such claim.
In another thread DavidJames has just claimed I said something I never said. It's an interesting tactic but you will get called on it.