Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 05:11 #61

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
November 18, 2014

RELEASE 14-318
NASA Announces Early Stage Innovations Space Tech Research Grants

The official NASA Happy Horsehit line--
"Research in these critical technology areas will enable science and exploration of our home planet, future deep space missions and our journey to Mars," said Michael Gazarik, associate administrator for NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate in Washington. "New space technology enables exploration while providing real world economic benefits to the American people right here on Earth, right now."

www.nasa.gov/press/2014/november/nasa-announces-early-stage-innovations-space-tech-research-grants/
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:05 #62

  • Mr Cappy
  • Mr Cappy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Capricornus
  • Posts: 904
  • Likes received: 142
There are many conspiracies that will never be revealed. 911 was obviously and blatantly a series of three controlled demolitions, but the masses have too much faith in MSM and too little understanding of probability and engineering/science to uncover that fraud. The official narrative regarding JFK will hold, despite Rolling Stone magazine picking up on Howard Hunt's deathbed confession. The official narrative regarding 7/7 will also hold, since the dumb masses don't have the appetite, attention span, or desire to explore that story.

But the Apollo moon landings? How long really can they keep that one going? Surely the moon landings lie has a shelf life?
The opprobrium of striving for a future that never comes.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: zax

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:18 #63

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Yes.The predictive programming done decades prior to the Apollo Theater laid the groundwork for it and the ultimate Endgame.
I can see all of you scratching your heads out there and I know exactly what it is that you are thinking: “Why the hell are we taking this detour to the Moon? What happened to Laurel Canyon? Have you completely lost your mind?”
*Sigh*

It all began a few months ago, when I became very busy at my day job as well as with family drama and with what turned out to be a very time-consuming side project, all of which made it increasingly difficult for me to carve out chunks of time to work on the remaining chapters in the series. Over the next two months or so, I pretty much lost all momentum and soon found it hard to motivate myself to write even when I could find the time.



That happens sometimes. Though it sounds rather cliché, ‘writer’s block’ is a very real phenomenon. There are many times when I can sit down at the keyboard and the words flow out of my head faster than I can get them down on the page. But there are also times when producing just one halfway decent sentence seems a near impossible task. This was one of those times.



I found a new source of inspiration, however, when my wife e-mailed me the recent story about the fake Dutch Moon rock, which I and many others found quite amusing, and which also reminded me that I had a lot of other bits and pieces of information concerning the Apollo project that I had collected over the nine years that have passed since I first wrote about the alleged Moon landings. After taking that first look, back in 2000, I was pretty well convinced that the landings were, in fact, faked, but it was perfectly obvious that the rather short, mostly tongue-in-cheek post that I put up back in July of 2000 was not going to convince anyone else of that.



So I contemplated taking a more comprehensive look at the Apollo program. Toward that end, I pulled up my original Apollo post along with various other bits and pieces scattered throughout past newsletters, threw in all the newer material that had never made it onto my website, and then combed the Internet for additional information. In doing so, I realized that a far better case could be made than what I had previously offered to readers.



I also realized that a far better case could be made than what is currently available on the ‘net.



I was rather surprised actually by how little there is out there – a couple of books by Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, a smattering of websites and a variety of YouTube videos of varying quality. Virtually all of the websites and videos tend to stick to the same ground covered by Kaysing and Rene, and they almost all use the same NASA photographs to argue the same points. So too do the sites devoted to ‘debunking’ the notion that the landings were faked, and those sites seem to actually outnumber the hoax sites.



While suffering through the numbing uniformity of the various websites on both sides of the aisle, it became perfectly clear that the hoax side of the debate was in serious need of a fresh approach and some new insights. So I began writing again. Feverishly. That does not mean, however, that I have abandoned the Laurel Canyon series. I intend to get back to it quite soon.



And truth be told, while the Apollo story may initially appear to be a radical departure from the ongoing Laurel Canyon series, it actually isn’t much of a detour at all. After all, we’re still going to be living in the 1960s and 1970s. And to a significant degree, we’re probably still going to be hanging out in Laurel Canyon – because who else, after all, was NASA going to trust to handle the post-production work on all that Apollo footage if not Lookout Mountain Laboratory?



I am very well aware, by the way, that there are many, many people out there – even many of the people who have seen through other tall tales told by our government – who think that Moon hoax theorists are complete kooks. And a whole lot of coordinated effort has gone into casting them as such. That makes wading into the Moon hoax debate a potentially dangerous affair.



Remember when Luther (played by Don Knotts) gets taken to court and sued for slander in The Ghost and Mr. Chicken? And don’t try to pretend like you’ve never seen it, because we both know that you have. So anyway, he goes to court and a character witness is called and the guy delivers credible testimony favoring Luther and it is clear that the courtroom is impressed and everything is looking good for our nebbish hero, Luther. Remember what happens next though? On cross-examination, the witness reveals that he is the president of a UFO club that holds their meetings on Mars!



The courtroom, of course, erupts with laughter and all of that formerly credible testimony immediately flies right out the window.



I have already received e-mails warning that I will suffer a similar fate (from people who heard me discussing the topic on Meria Heller’s radio show). Not to worry though – I have somewhat of an advantage over others who have attempted to travel this path: I don’t really care. My mission is to ferret out the truth, wherever it may lie; if at various points along the way, some folks are offended and others question my sanity, that’s not really something that I lose a lot of sleep over.



Anyway, a whole lot of people are extremely reluctant to give up their belief in the success of the Apollo missions. A lot of people, in fact, pretty much shut down at the mere mention of the Moon landings being faked, refusing to even consider the possibility (Facebook, by the way, is definitely not the best place to promote the notion that the landings were faked, in case anyone was wondering). And yet there are some among the True Believers who will allow that, though they firmly believe that we did indeed land on the Moon, they would have understood if it had been a hoax. Given the climate of the times, with Cold War tensions simmering and anxious Americans looking for some sign that their country was still dominant and not technologically inferior to the Soviets, it could be excused if NASA had duped the world.



Such sentiments made me realize that the Moon landing lie is somewhat unique among the big lies told to the American people in that it was, in the grand scheme of things, a relatively benign lie, and one that could be easily spun. Admitting that the landings were faked would not have nearly the same impact as, say, admitting to mass murdering 3,000 Americans and destroying billions of dollars worth of real estate and then using that crime as a pretext to wage two illegal wars and strip away civil, legal and privacy rights.



And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign lie, there is a tremendous reluctance among the American people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them being that there is a romanticized notion that those were great years – years when one was proud to be an American. And in this day and age, people need that kind of romanticized nostalgia to cling to.



But that is not the main reason that people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media, and the scientific community, and the educational community, and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in?



That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.



It has been my experience that the vast majority of the people who truly believe in the Moon landings know virtually nothing about the alleged missions. And when confronted with some of the more implausible aspects of those alleged missions, the most frequently offered argument is the one that every ‘conspiracy theorist’ has heard at least a thousand times: “That can’t possibly be true because there is no way that a lie that big could have been covered up all this time … too many people would have known about it … yadda, yadda, yadda.”



But what if your own eyes and your innate (though suppressed) ability to think critically and independently tell you that what all the institutions of the State insist is true is actually a lie? What do you do then? Do you trust in your own cognitive abilities, or do you blindly follow authority and pretend as though everything can be explained away? If your worldview will not allow you to believe what you can see with your own eyes, then the problem, it would appear, is with your worldview. So do you change that worldview, or do you live in denial?



The Moon landing lie is unique among the big lies in another way as well: it is a lie that seemingly cannot be maintained indefinitely. Washington need never come clean on, say, the Kennedy assassinations. After all, they’ve been lying about the Lincoln assassination for nearly a century-and-a-half now and getting away with it. But the Moon landing hoax, I would think, has to have some kind of expiration date.



How many decades can pass, after all, without anyone coming even close to a reenactment before people start to catch on? Four obviously haven’t been enough, but how about five, or six, or seven? How about when we hit the 100-year anniversary?



If the first trans-Atlantic flight had not been followed up with another one for over forty years, would anyone have found that unusual? If during the early days of the automobile, when folks were happily cruising along in their Model T’s at a top speed of 40 MPH, someone had suddenly developed a car that could be driven safely at 500 MPH, and then after a few years that car disappeared and for many decades thereafter, despite tremendous advances in automotive technology, no one ever again came close to building a car that could perform like that, would that seem at all odd?



There are indications that this lie does indeed have a shelf life. According to a July 17, 2009 post on CNN.com, “It’s been 37 years since the last Apollo moon mission, and tens of millions of younger Americans have no memories of watching the moon landings live. A 2005-2006 poll by Mary Lynne Dittmar, a space consultant based in Houston, Texas, found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some doubt that humans set foot on the moon.”



The goal of any dissident writer is to crack open the doors of perception enough to let a little light in – so that hopefully the seeds of a political reawakening will be planted. There are many doors that can be pried open to achieve that goal, but this one seems particularly vulnerable. Join me then as we take a little trip to the Moon. Or at least pretend to.
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html
:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:33 #64

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The kidders at NASA--


Plastic Spaceships
A new material named RXF1 derived from ordinary household plastic trash bags could help protect astronauts on their way to Mars

After reading this article, you might never look at trash bags the same way again.

We all use plastic trash bags; they're so common that we hardly give them a second thought. So who would have guessed that a lowly trash bag might hold the key to sending humans to Mars?

artist's conception of spaceship going to Mars

Most household trash bags are made of a polymer called polyethylene. Variants of that molecule turn out to be excellent at shielding the most dangerous forms of space radiation. Scientists have long known this. The trouble has been trying to build a spaceship out of the flimsy stuff.

www.nasa.gov/vision/space/travelinginspace/25aug_plasticspaceships.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:36 #65

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The detection of the third Van Allen belt



There are two electron belts and one proton belt (so there are three "Van Allen belts").

The proton belt (blue)


begins with about 500 km over the Earth and is extends up to a height of 13,000 km. This inner belt contains protons with an energy of over 10 mio. Volt. Scientists mean today that these protons are trapped cosmic radiation particles from out of the solar system or they are trapped by the sun itself, during heavy son glinting.

The low energy electron belt (pink)
overlapping the space of the proton belt. The electrons bear an energy average of 1 to 5 mio. volts.

Third high energetic electron belt (violet)
is further out in space and in the diagram the violet belt. The electrons in this outer belt bear an average of 10 to 100 mio. volt.
www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/10-01_three-Van-Allen-radiation-belts-NASA-ENGL.html
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:38 #66

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:39 #67

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 06:44 #68

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560

:wissl:
:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 07:00 #69

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Coronal Mass Ejection-

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 08:06 #70

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The space travel hoaxes 1959-2014
Human space travel to the Moon, around Earth or anywhere in outer space is not possible. The US/NASA Moon trips 1969-1972 were simple propaganda stunts created in Hollywood studios to entertain us, etc., like all NASA Mercury and Gemini trips just around the Earth a little earlier. Reason is simple; it is not possible to get away from planet Earth, land on and take off from the Moon and later make a re-entry and land on Earth again using a capsule after any space trip - you are too heavy to start with and going too fast and you will simply burn up as you cannot brake or reduce speed in the strong gravity field pulling you down

heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI, skycentrism

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 19 Nov 2014 09:15 #71

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7960
Great thread :up: collecting information on the NASA scam :yup:

The post there and following truth-zone.net/forum/science-and-physics/63995-german-flying-objects-gfo-vril-haunebu-die-glocke-peenemuende-jonastal-neu-schwabenland-real-or-fiction.html?start=20#134916

in fact belong to the same topic, just from a different perspective, perhaps.

Keep going, zax!

:)
"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 19 Nov 2014 09:15 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: zax

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 06:59 #72

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The Masonic Hoodwinkers at NASA are full of what ther claim will cover their spacecrafrts--

The first private mission to Mars will launch in 2018 and use poop for radiation shielding


Spending so long in space will result in the astronauts being bombarded by a lot of solar radiation, increasing their risk of developing cancer by 3% — but Tito’s CTO has a plan: creating a radiation shield out of the astronauts’ poop.

www.extremetech.com/extreme/149916-the-first-private-mission-to-mars-will-launch-in-2018-and-use-poop-for-radiation-shielding

:iitm:
:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: PFIZIPFEI

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 07:18 #73

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The Showstopper--space radiation.Of course NASA came up with Magic Mylar and wrapped it around the LEM Clubhouse and used some cardboard,staples and scotch tape to hold it together,and went on to produce their shows--

There is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and self-congratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so.



One thing they like to talk a lot about is the Van Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about them as well. The hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men.



As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts. We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so. They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon.



On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA's Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there's a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas … Finding a good shield is important.” (science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm)



You’re damn right finding a good shield is important!! Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to the Moon. But now, I guess, being that we are more cultured and sophisticated, we want to do it the right way so we have to come up with some way of shielding our spaceships. And our temporary Moon bases. And figuring out how to do that, according to NASA, could be a real “showstopper.”



As NASA notes, “the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option.” Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding, but lead also isn’t very popular with spaceship designers. In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.



Now NASA is thinking outside the box and contemplating using ‘force fields’ to repel the radiation, a seemingly ridiculous idea that, whether workable in the future or not, certainly wasn’t available to NASA in the 1960s. Below is NASA’s own artist rendering of a proposed ‘force field’ radiation shield that would allow astronauts to work safely on the Moon. As you may have noticed in the earlier photos of the lunar modules, our guys didn’t bring anything like that with them on their, uhmm, earlier missions to the Moon. And you may have also noticed that the modules did not have any type of physical shielding.


How then did they do it? My guess is that the answer lies in that gold foil wrap. While it may look like an amateurish attempt to make the modules appear more ‘high-tech,’ I have a hunch that what we are looking at is another example of the lost technology of the 1960s – this time in the form of a highly-advanced superpolymer that provided maximum radiation shielding while adding virtually no weight. So all we have to do is track down a few leftover rolls of that stuff and we should be well on our way to sending guys back to the Moon.



According to Charles Buhler, a NASA scientist currently working on the force field concept, “Using electric fields to repel radiation was one of the first ideas back in the 1950s, when scientists started to look at the problem of protecting astronauts from radiation. They quickly dropped the idea though because it seemed like the high voltages needed and the awkward designs that they thought would be necessary … would make such an electric shield impractical.”



What a real journalist would have asked here, of course, is: “After dropping the electric shield concept, exactly what did they decide to use to get our astronauts safely to the Moon and back on the Apollo missions? And why can’t we do the same thing now, rather than reinventing the wheel? Don’t you guys have some of that gold foil in a closet somewhere?” No one in the American media, of course, bothered to ask such painfully obvious questions.



The 2005 report from NASA ends as follows: “But, who knows, perhaps one day astronauts on the Moon … will work safely.” Yes, and while we’re dreaming the impossible dream, let’s add a few more things to our wish list as well, like perhaps one day we’ll be able to listen to music on 8-track tape players, and talk to people on rotary dial telephones, and carry portable transistor radios, and use cameras that shoot pictures on special film that develops right before our eyes. Only time will tell, I suppose.



The Van Allen belts, by the way, trap most Earth-bound radiation, thus making it safe for us mortals down here on the surface of planet Earth, as well as for astronauts in low-Earth orbit (the belts extend from 1,000 to 25,000 miles above the surface of the Earth). The danger is in sending men through and beyond the belts, which, apart from the Apollo missions, has never been attempted … well, actually there was that one time, but I think we all remember how badly that turned out. In case anyone has forgotten, the astronauts returned to a world dominated by extremely poor acting, apes speaking with British accents, and a shirtless Charleton Heston. And I don’t think anyone wants to see that happen again.



The 2005 report was not the first time that NASA had openly discussed the high levels of radiation that exist beyond the Van Allen belts. In February 2001, the space agency posted a ‘debunking’ article that argued that the rocks allegedly brought back from the Moon were so distinctive in nature that they proved definitively that man had gone to the Moon. The problem though with maintaining a lie of the magnitude of the Moon landing lie is that there is always the danger that in defending one part of the lie, another part will be exposed. Such was the case with NASA’s ill-conceived The Great Moon Hoax post, in which it was acknowledged that what are referred to as “cosmic rays” have a tendency to “constantly bombard the Moon and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks.”



NASA scientist David McKay explained that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.” The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere. Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”



So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.



How exactly are we to reconcile NASA’s current position on space radiation with the same agency’s simultaneous claim that we have already sent men to the Moon? There are a few different possibilities that come to mind, the first of which is that, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we simply threw caution to the wind and sent our boys off to the Moon with no protection whatsoever from space radiation. If that were true, however, then the question that would naturally be raised is: why not just do it again? After all, all of our Moonwalkers made it home safe and sound and most all have lived long, healthy, cancer-free lives. So why all the fuss over space radiation?



NASA could, I suppose, take the position that space radiation is a recent problem. Perhaps in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, space was relatively free of radiation, allowing unshielded Apollo rockets to cruise about without a care in the world while crew members primarily busied themselves with such important tasks as trying to capture all the stems and seeds that were floating around the command module as a result of cleaning their stash of low-grade ‘60s marijuana. It was just a different solar system back in those days. As aging hippies like to say, if you remember the solar system of the sixties, you weren’t really flying around in it.



If it proves not to be the case that this space radiation “showstopper” is a new development, then I suppose that the only explanation that we are left with is that we did indeed have the technology to shield our astronauts from radiation back in the 1960s, but at some time during the last four decades, that technology was simply lost. What probably happened was that an overzealous night custodian simply threw the data away. The conversation around the NASA water cooler the next day probably went something like this: "Holy shit! Has anyone seen that folder that I left on my desk last night? It contained the only copy of the secret formula that I devised for building a weightless space radiation shield. It could be forty years or more before someone else can duplicate it! My ass is so fired!”
www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo3.html
Last Edit: 20 Nov 2014 07:19 by zax.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 07:22 #74

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
The LEM Clubhouse... :D ... :cool: .. a cardboard monstrosity---

Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 08:14 #75

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 08:16 #76

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
A bootprint allegedly on the moon.



Moonsets on earth,but please do not blame this horsey---



:D


:cool:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 08:24 #77

  • zax
  • zax's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 5825
  • Likes received: 1560
Lunar Roving Vehicle--



Step one--

Step two--


step three--


:chuckle:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 20 Nov 2014 10:32 #78

  • Mr Cappy
  • Mr Cappy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Capricornus
  • Posts: 904
  • Likes received: 142
If I recall correctly whilst working as a researcher at Imperial College, don't they have a bit of one of the Lem's at the Imperial Science Museum? I remember thinking at the time what a flimsy piece of engineering it was. The year I worked at Imperial was incidentally the year I 'awoke' from my mainstream slumber. It was the year 911 happened and I was researching steel and concrete. Hello rabbit hole I said.

I seem to recall the Lem displayed in the same room as a 1970's Raleigh Chopper and a 1980's Sinclair ZX81 or Spectrum. Items innumerably more credible and useful than the fake Apollo moon ships.
The opprobrium of striving for a future that never comes.
Last Edit: 20 Nov 2014 10:36 by Mr Cappy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 22 Nov 2014 16:01 #79

  • PFIZIPFEI
  • PFIZIPFEI's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • WORDS are my SWORD
  • Posts: 20433
  • Likes received: 7960



step three to me looks rather like a


"The truth must be repeated over and over again,
because error is repeatedly preached among us, not
only by individuals, but by the masses. In periodicals
and cyclopaedias, in schools and universities; every-
where, in fact, error prevails, and is quite easy in the
feeling that it has a decided majority on its side."

~ J. W. v. Goethe

Johannes Lang "The Hollow World Theory" Blog
My Zone by PFIZIPFEI
Last Edit: 22 Nov 2014 16:04 by PFIZIPFEI.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

NASA : A Cosmic Cash Cow 22 Nov 2014 19:12 #80

  • Cinta
  • Cinta's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Never Again
  • ''None are more hopelessly enslaved,than those who falsely believe they are free
  • Posts: 5339
  • Likes received: 1070
This kind of disgusting and disrespectful behaviour is condoned here

ORANGEAID verbal abuse

''Cinta is a whore.
I don't change one word I've said.''

truth-zone.net/forum/members-area/67105-open-up-the-clarity-zone-to-all-tz-members-we-need-transparency-and-not-secrecy.html?start=80#209733
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.