David Biedny said:
I saw the moon landings on TV when they happened. We've been there and done that. And I'm not inclined to want to buy imported moon-based cream cheese
And, yes, a return voyage is long overdue, but let's get real.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Free episodes:
I saw the moon landings on TV when they happened. We've been there and done that. And I'm not inclined to want to buy imported moon-based cream cheese
And, yes, a return voyage is long overdue, but let's get real.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
a little off topic but maybe not... why doesnt the moon rotate? everything else in the universe seems to rotate.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Both Japan and China sent probes to the moon recently - prospecting for helium3 isotope, I guess - anyone seen any interesting pics from them?
P
pixelsmith
Guest
why dont we have a robot or two or three on the moon?
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
pixelsmith said:
Dunno - very weird - there's a 'far' side that we never see.
We **don't know** that everything else in the universe seems to rotate...
There are several theories about the origins of the moon - but let's bury those, 'cos we all know it's a Dyson Sphere
G
Gil Bavel
Guest
Well, of course, robotic missions to the moon (devil's advocate) could have left the reflectors, seismographs behind, etc... the point is how the astronauts survived what Van Allen himself said would be impossible for people to go through.
Then--and I don't know how many of you know this--the U.S. Govt. exploded three nuclear weapons in space (I know, it sounds ludicrous, look it up--Projects Argus and Starfish) to get rid of the Van Allen Belts and ended up making them hundreds of times more radioactive and dangerous.
As explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "... Starfish made a much wider belt [than Project Argus] that extends from low altitude out past L=3 [i.e. three earth radiauses or about 13,000 km above the surface of the earth]." Later in 1962, the USSR undertook similar planetary experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km above the earth. According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high- altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state. According to American scientists, it could take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen Belts to destabilize at their normal levels. (Research done by: Nigel Harle, Borderland Archives, Cortenbachstraat 32, 6136 CH Sittard, Netherlands.)
And we're supposed to believe that astronauts flew through all that, and that they're still kicking around, in great health.
Well, none of that matters now, since there's absolutely NO CHANCE of a Paracast show on what is obviously a topic that forum readers want to hear about and have a great deal of interest in.
Then--and I don't know how many of you know this--the U.S. Govt. exploded three nuclear weapons in space (I know, it sounds ludicrous, look it up--Projects Argus and Starfish) to get rid of the Van Allen Belts and ended up making them hundreds of times more radioactive and dangerous.
As explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "... Starfish made a much wider belt [than Project Argus] that extends from low altitude out past L=3 [i.e. three earth radiauses or about 13,000 km above the surface of the earth]." Later in 1962, the USSR undertook similar planetary experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km above the earth. According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high- altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state. According to American scientists, it could take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen Belts to destabilize at their normal levels. (Research done by: Nigel Harle, Borderland Archives, Cortenbachstraat 32, 6136 CH Sittard, Netherlands.)
And we're supposed to believe that astronauts flew through all that, and that they're still kicking around, in great health.
Well, none of that matters now, since there's absolutely NO CHANCE of a Paracast show on what is obviously a topic that forum readers want to hear about and have a great deal of interest in.
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
pixelsmith said:
HaHaHa! Thanks Pixel, that made my day.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
does anyone here know WHY we cannot inspect the moons surface in great detail from earth? i have never heard a good answer. some say the hubble is too powerful to focus on the moon, maybe so but we must have something else to do the job.
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
Gene Steinberg said:
Are you sure that what you saw was not pre-recorded? Where is the proof that the filming took place on the Moon? You were told that the images came from the Moon, and you chose to believe it, even though you had no means of verifying their authenticity.
Gene Steinberg said:
Yes, I wished we would.
nikki630
Skilled Investigator
musictomyears said:
Because the Encyclopedia Britannica says it wasn't pre-recorded.
I think 'how do you know it is true' is something of a straw man argument because it can never actually be answered. If I reply "I read it in a book' the next question is 'how do you know the book is true ?', if I say "I saw it on TV' you might say "it could have been faked", when I say "I saw it with my own eyes" you say "you could have been hallucinating" etc.
The truth is that we can never be sure of the objective reality of anything we think we know. So we accept what our senses, both physical and mental tell us. Like Gene I watched the moon landing as it happened. I have no reason to suspect it was faked.
That being said, I would not object to a show about this topic. I am not interested enough in the topic to go digging for all the 'evidence' so it would be a lazy way for me to find out a little more and hear what the 'experts' have to say. But equally, I have no deep need for there to be a show on fake moon landings either, so if it never happens (and it looks like it won't) that is OK by me as well
Now -- a show on faeries -- that's the one I want to hear.
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
nikki630 said:
That's one absurd bit of "logic". According to you (and Gene?), because something was shown on TV, it is true? Talk about successful brainwashing. So, when Colgate tells you that their toothpaste is the best, healthiest and cheapest ever, it must be true -- only because it was shown on TV? Or, to choose a more contemporary example, when GWB steps in front of the cameras and suggests Saddam had something to do with 9/11, it also must be true?
Honestly, I think all is lost. We might as well stop talking about UFOs, the paranormal, or anything for that matter.
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
musictomyears said:
I think this discussion is going around in circles - both Gene and David have demonstrated that they are both well aware of the power of the media to influence the perception of 'reality' - essentially the TV is a device for brain-washing on a very large scale.
G
Gil Bavel
Guest
They shot the television image off of a screen that was supposedly coming from Goldstone because they hadn't thought ahead to create a converter or adapter for the resolution they were using on the moon to hook up with a regular TV image. Pretty advanced, huh?
The truth is, we don't know where they pictures were coming from. They could have been in low Earth orbit, they could have come back down the elevator and the rocket launched a satellite, or it could have been a robotic mission. They might have shot the entire thing on a soundstage.
NASA has admitted embellishing the moon landing with faked shots. If they'll admit to faking some, who knows which ones they were, or how many more were faked. We've also caught the space agencies with their pants down in many other instances, including Mars, Phobos II, etc. There was just a program on the History Channel tonight about the Lunar rover that the Soviets had on the moon that was a secret until very recently.
This paradigm is impossible for you to break or even chip slightly because it's so ingrained in your consciousness. The first time someone tried to budge me from my position on this, I had the same reaction.
I don't even claim to be a "moon hoax believer". I'm just willing to allow for the idea. I have questions. Especially concerning the radiation; why regular old cameras were expected to work on the moon in near absolute zero temperature, and why the radiation didn't spoil the film (this is the part NASA admits faking, because "some" of the film got burned).
Open mind, not so much that your brains fall out. But, come on, just the shit that Michael Griffin has perpetrated alone is highly suspect.
Did you know that NASA now admits that the Challenger crew were alive when the crew compartment hit the water? They hid that for twenty years!
And the photos that a NASA employee claimed it was her job to airbrush before releasing them to the public?
Gary McKinnon's findings?
How convenient that half our probes keep getting destroyed just as they get near Mars insertion orbit. If you're buying the "we were using inches, they were using metrics" excuse, I've got some wonderful coastal beachfront property to sell you here in Kansas.
But back to the moon. If they will lie to us about all this other stuff, why is it so hard to imagine that they might have covered up a moon hoax, when they were under the same administration (more or less) that brought us the Viet Nam war, the Kennedy assassination and Watergate? They were in the business of lying to the American people! What's a little moon hoaxing?
Isn't it the point, that that was the point in American history when we started to question the government, and realized as a country that they pull some seriously nasty shit and try to keep us in the dark? That they lie to as as often as not, and really don't care what we think?
Nowadays, they don't even try to hide it--but back then, it was still a new concept that our government would not tell us the truth. And we wouldn't believe it then, either. It was like saying that the sun would never rise again.
Let's face it--there is a possibility--however small--that we NEVER went to the moon.
Want to put an end to it? Have some of these clowns on the show and give them enough rope. I'd say it's pretty damned paranormal if they put one over on us for forty years, and we never knew it. Tie in the missing tapes and the destruction of the machine that could play them back... I'd say that's a pretty good show.
WE WANT THE TRUTH, WHATEVER IT IS!
The truth is, we don't know where they pictures were coming from. They could have been in low Earth orbit, they could have come back down the elevator and the rocket launched a satellite, or it could have been a robotic mission. They might have shot the entire thing on a soundstage.
NASA has admitted embellishing the moon landing with faked shots. If they'll admit to faking some, who knows which ones they were, or how many more were faked. We've also caught the space agencies with their pants down in many other instances, including Mars, Phobos II, etc. There was just a program on the History Channel tonight about the Lunar rover that the Soviets had on the moon that was a secret until very recently.
This paradigm is impossible for you to break or even chip slightly because it's so ingrained in your consciousness. The first time someone tried to budge me from my position on this, I had the same reaction.
I don't even claim to be a "moon hoax believer". I'm just willing to allow for the idea. I have questions. Especially concerning the radiation; why regular old cameras were expected to work on the moon in near absolute zero temperature, and why the radiation didn't spoil the film (this is the part NASA admits faking, because "some" of the film got burned).
Open mind, not so much that your brains fall out. But, come on, just the shit that Michael Griffin has perpetrated alone is highly suspect.
Did you know that NASA now admits that the Challenger crew were alive when the crew compartment hit the water? They hid that for twenty years!
And the photos that a NASA employee claimed it was her job to airbrush before releasing them to the public?
Gary McKinnon's findings?
How convenient that half our probes keep getting destroyed just as they get near Mars insertion orbit. If you're buying the "we were using inches, they were using metrics" excuse, I've got some wonderful coastal beachfront property to sell you here in Kansas.
But back to the moon. If they will lie to us about all this other stuff, why is it so hard to imagine that they might have covered up a moon hoax, when they were under the same administration (more or less) that brought us the Viet Nam war, the Kennedy assassination and Watergate? They were in the business of lying to the American people! What's a little moon hoaxing?
Isn't it the point, that that was the point in American history when we started to question the government, and realized as a country that they pull some seriously nasty shit and try to keep us in the dark? That they lie to as as often as not, and really don't care what we think?
Nowadays, they don't even try to hide it--but back then, it was still a new concept that our government would not tell us the truth. And we wouldn't believe it then, either. It was like saying that the sun would never rise again.
Let's face it--there is a possibility--however small--that we NEVER went to the moon.
Want to put an end to it? Have some of these clowns on the show and give them enough rope. I'd say it's pretty damned paranormal if they put one over on us for forty years, and we never knew it. Tie in the missing tapes and the destruction of the machine that could play them back... I'd say that's a pretty good show.
WE WANT THE TRUTH, WHATEVER IT IS!
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
Good post, gilbavel.
musictomyears
Skilled Investigator
David Biedny said:
Well, I don't remember Bill O'Reilly ever apologising for his insults either.
Where did I say there was life on the Moon? Where did this question enter the debate? There might be life on Moon, but I don't know. I wouldn't trust NASA or any other space agency to tell us the truth about it - remember, these are the same institutions that routinely lie to us about UFOs.
nikki630
Skilled Investigator
musictomyears said:
Ummmmmmm no -- in fact I said almost the exact opposite -- though perhaps not very clearly
What I did say was the the source you quoted, the Encyclopedia Britannica, said the moon landing was not fake
What I did say was that I thought the 'how do you know it's true' argument was bogus
What I d id say was that we could not be sure of the objective reality of anything
What I did say was that So we accept what our senses, both physical and mental tell us. What I forgot to add was based on the evidence we have
What I did say was that I had not looked terribly deeply at this question. I would think that this would lead one to conclude that I have seen little evidence about the possibility of the moon landing being faked.
What I did say was that I was not overly interested in this topic, but would not object to a show about it. That way I could learn about it the LAZY way way.
I also said that I felt no deep need to have a show about this topic and that whatever Gene and David decided was OK by me
BUT I NEVER said that because I saw it on TV it must be true.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
David? no comment on the wire suspension requirements on the moon?
have you seen the astroNot being hoisted to his feet? the glistening of the wire over his head doesnt throw a flag up for you?
have you seen the astroNot being hoisted to his feet? the glistening of the wire over his head doesnt throw a flag up for you?
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Did you know that NASA now admits that the Challenger crew were alive when the crew compartment hit the water? They hid that for twenty years!
Actually, my buddy Chuck Farnham and I knew about that sad reality over 13 years ago, a friend of ours in NASA sent us - covertly - the transcript from inside the cabin, those poor folks knew they were gonna die and the transcript is intensely chilling. We had it posted on our VERY popular website - The Surfing Monkey - for years. You can probably track that page down on Thewaybackmachine on archive.org.
So if NASA has admitted to faking moon shots, I'd like to see the corroborating statement/s from them. Educate us.
dB
Actually, my buddy Chuck Farnham and I knew about that sad reality over 13 years ago, a friend of ours in NASA sent us - covertly - the transcript from inside the cabin, those poor folks knew they were gonna die and the transcript is intensely chilling. We had it posted on our VERY popular website - The Surfing Monkey - for years. You can probably track that page down on Thewaybackmachine on archive.org.
So if NASA has admitted to faking moon shots, I'd like to see the corroborating statement/s from them. Educate us.
dB
P
pixelsmith
Guest
so dB... you believe NASA lied recently but you you dont believe they lied in the past... interesting.
David Biedny
Paranormal Adept
Please don't put words in my mouth, pixelsmith.
I absolutely understand why ONLY THE FAMILY MEMBERS of the shuttle tragedy victims were informed of the details, exactly what morbid purpose would the release of this information to the public serve? To further heighten the sadness of this tragedy? To increase your entertainment value? Chuck & I got ahold of the transcript and posted it at a time when there were years between us & the tragedy, so we did our part in getting the truth out. What did you do in 1995 to tell the truth to the public?
I asked for those of you who claim that NASA admitted to faking photos, to cite references to those admissions. Got anything to show us?
dB
I absolutely understand why ONLY THE FAMILY MEMBERS of the shuttle tragedy victims were informed of the details, exactly what morbid purpose would the release of this information to the public serve? To further heighten the sadness of this tragedy? To increase your entertainment value? Chuck & I got ahold of the transcript and posted it at a time when there were years between us & the tragedy, so we did our part in getting the truth out. What did you do in 1995 to tell the truth to the public?
I asked for those of you who claim that NASA admitted to faking photos, to cite references to those admissions. Got anything to show us?
dB