Comments by "Old Guy Gaming Network" (@CRAZYHORSE19682003) on "Curious Droid" channel.

  1. Well there were so many self hating white liberals in Britain who blames themselves for much of the worlds problems. They figured if they could destroy Britain as a power than the world would be a better place.
    41
  2. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit. Show less REPLY
    17
  3. Let ask you the following question. Of the following scenarios which one has the highest probability of being correct. #1) The Moon landings actually happened but some people lack the understanding of science and physics to understand some of the things they see so it makes them doubt what happened. OR #2) The Moon Landings were the greatest Hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Somehow NASA were able to fool the entire scientific community of the WORLD and yet lacked BASIC QUALITY CONTROL on the movie set and made such simple mistakes that someone without any scientific background watching a video on youtube could pick out their whole host of mistakes. If you choose option 2 and these mistakes are so easily seen. Why didn't the Russian's jump all over these easily spotted mistakes?
    15
  4. The modified F-101B which Canada acquired from the US had enough performance, it could hit MACH 1.8. They were able to get it for a FRACTION of the cost of the Arrow program. At the time of cancellation the Arrows cost had risen to 3x the price of a F-106 and it was not as good as the F-106. The Arrow was certainly innovative and was on the cutting edge of technology, the problem was that aviation technology was advancing so rapidly an aircraft that was cutting edge one moment was obsolete 5 years later. What hurt the Arrow is it was specifically designed for the interception mission, it could not do anything else. Interceptors became obsolete overnight with the introduction of ICBM's. The A-5 had the EXACT same role as the TSR-2 it was a high speed nuclear strike bomber. The A-5 may not have been quite as fast but it had a much better range. The A-5 was a adoption of many of the technologies of the F-108 program, from a technological standpoint it was more advanced than the TSR-2. The only part that I think is conspiracy bullshit is people thinking that these were some sort of super planes and the United States government put pressure on the respective governments to cancel them out of fear.
    13
  5. Can I ask a serious question Steven. You claim that there are so many anomalies in the NASA moon films that anyone can spot them. Can you explain to me how the Russians failed to see this when it happened? Think of the propaganda victory they would get if they exposed this as you put it easily detected fraud? I am not trying to insult you or belittle your opinion. I am simply trying to understand how you have come to your conclusions.
    11
  6. The moon landing conspiracy theorists remind me a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. You say the moon landings were proven fake by "Experts" for several decades. Than sir may I ask a simple question. Name one "Expert" the field of science that he is expert in that will support his opinion. A scientific paper he has written and submitted for peer review and the scientific journal it was published in. I remember when the 9/11 wacko's claim they had peer reviewed scientific proof that thermite was used in the destruction of the twin towers. A Dr. Niels Harrit even wrote a paper on it and had it published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. For the 9/11 conspiracy theorist it was heaven on earth. They FINALLY had scientific evidence proving their point. Not so fast. When the claims of Dr. Harrit were examined it turned out that Dr. Harrit had his paper peer reviewed by members of his own team. That violated the basic premise behind a peer review in the first place. When his findings were reviewed by multiple scientists from around the world that were not connected with his research they all came to the same conclusion. His research was flawed, based on bad science, and ultimately he reached the wrong conclusions. So the 9/11 wackos did not get their holy grail after all. It was just another bit of bad science pushed forward by a "Expert" that could not pass a perr review.
    10
  7. First the Apollo missions were visually observed from both amateur and professional astronomers from all over the world. Second you can't fake the radio transmissions. When listening to a signal from three different locations at the same time using simple triangulation you can locate where the transmissions are coming from. If they were made from orbit it would have been detected in 30 seconds. Third, in the 60's the Russians had spies in all levels of Government. Do you really think a secret this big could be kept from the KGB when even our nuclear secrets were not safe? Fourth, in any operation the more people involved the less operationally secure it is. A perfect example would be the Gulf of Tonkin incident where the United States staged a fake attack by North Vietnamese gunboats on a USN destroyer as a pretext to get involved in Vietnam. Only a small group of people knew about it probably less than 300 yet that secret came out pretty quickly. The Apollo missions had tens of thousands of people working on them. Do you find it plausible that a secret of that magnitude could be kept under wraps? Using conspiracy theory to prove my point take the alleged Roswell incident. Supposedly the most advanced cover up in American history and classified beyond top secret. With less than 40 people involved in the incident look at how much information has leaked out over the years. Again I ask if you think a operation more than a thousand times larger could be kept secret for all these years. Fourth All the alleged scientific reasons conspiracy theorists claim the moon landings were hoaxed, do you really think all the Russians top scientists MISSED THEM ALL? The Russians have some of the most brilliant minds in the world in the fields of physics, science, etc. Do you really think they missed all the signs that the moon landings were a hoax and high school educated Johnny surfing the internet somehow figured it out? No my friend to believe in the moon landings were faked crowd you have to be willing to ignore science. Ignore physics. Ignore logic and critical thinking. I am not aware of ONE moon landing was faked conspiracy theorist who is educated in the proper scientific disciplines to be able to accurately examine actual scientific evidence and come to a educated conclusion.
    9
  8. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit. Show less REPLY
    9
  9. For a rocket to work in space, the chemicals used for rocket once mixed together create their own oxygen for combustion. As the rapid expansion and combustion of gasses is allowed to escape through the exhaust nozzle the pressure is actually the escaping fuel pushing against the rocket itself. The scientific principle is pretty much just like a inflated balloon. When you let go of it will fly around the room right. The air escaping from the balloon is not acting on the outside air to create the force that moves the balloon. It is the force of the escaping air that is greater than the pressure inside the balloon that is creating the force. It is the exact same thing for a rocket engine in space. The thrust exiting the rocket is interacting with the mass of the rocket itself creating acceleration. I am not that great at explaining it but I hope that clears up at least one thing for you. Back to the Russians. During the cold war and space race. We were in a propaganda war with the Soviet Union in a never ending game of one upmanship. During this time the Soviet Union had penetrated all levels of our Government with spies. We did the same with them. Trying to keep a secret of this magnitude from the Soviet Union seems a little implausible don't you think? I will also point out that the Apollo missions were tracked by radar by multiple nations from around the world all the way to the moon and back. That would be pretty difficult to fake. Also the Astronauts transmissions from the moon would be very difficult to fake. Using the simple principle of triangulation. If you are listening to a signal from multiple locations you can triangulate the signal and get a fairly precise position from where the signals originate. You better believe the Soviets were listening in and if the signals were coming from a low orbit satellite that deception would have been discovered in minutes. Steve, I am a amateur astronomer. I have spent hundreds of hours out at night with my local astronomy club viewing the universe. I can personally attest that the ISS is real. I have observed it at least 50 times. I remember years ago seeing the Space Shuttle docked with it through my Telescope. It was a amazing sight. Can I make a suggestion. Look up on the internet who the local astronomy clubs are in your area. Go visit them on a night they are holding a public star party. Ask one of them to show you the ISS when it passed overhead. They will gladly do it, if there is one universal fact about amateur astronomers it is they love showing off their gear. I have about 12k invested in my rig and that is on the low end in my astronomy club. Go look at the universe and see it's wonders, talk to the guys doing astrophotography and ask them to explain how it works. Maybe one of the guys will have a binocular adapter for his telescope tha allows you to view objects in three dimensions. You will see first hand how the moon is round. The other planets in the solar system are round. Heck maybe you will catch the astronomy bug. Get someone to show you M-81 and M-82, one of my personal favorite things to look at. Here is a picture http://astropixels.com/galaxies/images/M81M82-A01w.jpg Can you imagine being able to see TWO GALAXIES at once. It blows my mind away that I am looking at trillions of stars and I can not help wonder if someone in either galaxy is looking at our galazy and wondering if anyone is out there.
    8
  10. lol you can choose to live in the dark ages where a magic invisible sky man created everything and is constantly watching you. However the reality is your beliefs are BULLSHIT. They are pure made up fantasy, stories created by idiots lime yourself to try and explain phenomena in the natural world that they did not have the scientific understanding to explain. Your "God" is a myth, a made up entity that only the ignorant and gullible believe in.
    8
  11. It does not. However here is the difference between science and religion. In religion you have to believe in invisible skymen, zombies, the world was created in 7 days. All kinds of bullshit that simply is not true. In science there is something called the scientific method. If someone makes a discovery they write a paper on it and submit it for peer review. In the peer review other scientists attempt to duplicate the scientists work using the exact same methodology. If they can and find the exact same results than what the scientist discovered journeys from hypothesis to fact. The moon landing conspiracies are pure ignorance on display. From the retroreflectors left on the moon, that anyone with a laser powerful enough can use to measure the distance from the earth to the moon. The LRO's high resolution pictures of the Lunar surface showing the Apollo landing sites, equipment they left behind. The tire tracks from the lunar rover to the very foot prints the astronauts left behind. The Chinese have stated publicly they were able to detect the Apollo landing sites with their lunar orbiter. There is enough concrete proof to prove we went to the moon, it is just that conspiracy theorists want to bury their head in the sand and pretend it does not exist.
    8
  12. You have to be trolling. I refuse to believe that anyone could be stupid enough to believe the world is flat.
    8
  13. LOL Sorry you would be incorrect. The Americans ALREADY had a better interceptor than the Arrow in the F-106 that flew almost two YEARS before the Arrow prototype did. The Americans already had the A-5 which was in SERVICE for THREE YEARS before the TSR-2 made it's first flight. The F-111 itself would grow into a far more capable aircraft than the TSR-2. It was faster 200 feet off the ground and at altitude.
    8
  14. The Arrow was obsolete before they even built it. It was a single mission aircraft that didn't have a mission. The Soviet supersonic bomber threat never materialized and with the advent of ICBM's and later SLBM's, interceptors were obsolete. As to the TSR-2 the Americans already had a aircraft just as good. The A-5 and it flew LONG before the TSR-2. So stop with the conspiracy theory bullshit.
    7
  15. Instead of just canceling the aircraft they should have had a replacement project on order to keep the Canadian aviation industry going. The Arrow was a AMAZING achievement and piece of engineering, especially if you look at the quantum leap forward in capability Avro achieved from the CF-100 to the CF-105. It was as if they skipped a full generation of aircraft. It's Achilles heel was it was so optimized for the interceptor role it could not fill other roles like air superiority or close air support. It had such a short combat range it could not fill the role of strike bomber either. I actually think the bigger loss was the engines, the Orenda Iroquois engine was the most advanced turbojet in the world at the time. Imagine where they would be if they keep developing cutting edge engine technology.
    6
  16. What I meant is that in the rush to develop high performance interceptors it was envisioned that the Russians would be flying huge formations of bombers carrying nuclear weapons in over the arctic circle and striking targets in the US. The Russians never developed a large strategic bomber force. They had a small token force not what was envisioned. The Russians switched to the ICBM and the SLBM as the main nuclear deterrent. There was no need to field a fleet of expensive high performance interceptors to counter a small fleet of TU-95 Bear subsonic bombers.
    4
  17. So the F-106 with flew almost TWO YEARS BEFORE the Arrow and the A-5 which was in SERVICE for three years before the TSR-2 even flew is a unfair comparison? I think not I am comparing aircraft that were OLDER than the Arrow or TSR-2 yet were better aircraft. Even if you look at the F-101B aircraft that Canada acquired to replace the Arrow was nearly equal in performance to the Arrow. It was not vastly inferior as you state.
    4
  18. When I was researching these deaths the Private investigator dying of cancer with his wife at the same time is probably made up. A evolution of the original conspiracy theory that says he just interviewed the head of the United Stated Geological department. In the original claims it makes no mention of him dying of cancer and there is no mention of his wife at all.
    3
  19. It is how conspiracy theory is formed. With each retelling of the story it becomes more and more fantastic. Take the Roswell case as a example, in the original book it is a fantastic tail but is is filled with here say and anecdotal tails. No alien bodies, no evidence, etc. Over the years the original tail has grown and spawned into the ridiculous Roswell story of today.
    3
  20. Peter, here we go AGAIN with your lack of understanding. The reason why they train in a pool is because it simulates zero g. Sitting around in a vacuum chamber with gravity simulates NOTHING. In your bullshit video that is probably edited and taken out of context, I would be willing to bet the astronauts suit malfunctioned during the test. Space suits are self contained environments. Meaning they are pressurized inside. You will feel NO DIFFERENT in the vacuum of space than you would inside the spacecraft. Don't you see what is going on here? For whatever reason you desperately want to believe the moon landings were faked. Going to space is faked, etc. You want to believe this so much that you are willing to ignore reality. When yiu see a video on youtube that happens to support your point of view you jump all over it and say it's proof that you were right. You never bother to take a minute and think about what the video is claiming and if it has any possible chance of being true.
    3
  21. Ok I am going to call bullshit. You do not really believe this bullshit....it is just a work....a troll.
    3
  22. WOW the scariest thing about your entire post is that you have children. Peter....Peter....Peter......Face Palm. Science is like kryptonite to you isn't it. First you are aware that different materials reflect light at different rates correct? The "Dirt and mud" of Earth has a much different composition than the lunar surface. This should be apparent to anyone with a IQ over 9 so again.....SCARY. Now to the second part of your observation. You are aware that during the day the various surfaces of the earth absorb heat during the day. At night that heat escapes from those surfaces. Some areas will retain heat better than others leading to the inconsistent results you received with your temperature gauge. Since the moon only reflects about 12% of the sunlight it is far too weak to influence the surface temperature. Here is a simple article explaining the moon and why it shines. https://www.universetoday.com/75891/why-does-the-moon-shine/
    3
  23. OK you threw so much at me I am only going to address two of your claims. If you want to bring up the others please do it one or two at a time. #1 The Van Allen Belts. This is the most common incorrect assumption by conspiracy theorists. The reason why they are incorrect is because they do not understand radiation. The Van Allen Belts are comprised of CHARGED PARTICLE radiation. A TYPE of radiation that is not nearly as deadly to people as high EM band radiation like X-Rays and Gamma Rays. A human would have to speed three strait months in the Van Allen Belts to be exposed to a lethal dose of radiation. During the trips to the moon the astronauts spent a TOTAL of three hours in the Van Allen Belts. All Apollo astronauts carried dosimeters with them to measure radiation exposure. They received a average dose of 5 REM'S of radiation which is less than a worker at a nuclear power plant receives in a year. Remember when you said people like me just believe whatever the Government says? I could say the same about conspiracy theorists like you. It is clear you never bothered to do any actual research into the Van Allen belts. You just chose to believe what conspiracy videos told you. #2 The Rocket not leaving a crater on the surface of the moon. This is the second most common incorrect assumption by conspiracy theorists. This comes from people not understanding how rockets work in a vacuum. First the rocket motor on the lander had a max thrust capability of 10,000 pounds. However during the landing phase it was never powered to over 3000 pounds of thrust, in a 1/6th gravity environment the lander effectively weighed about 3700 pounds. The exhaust bell for the lunar lander was 54 inches in diameter. So if you calculate the amount of pressure coming out of the exhaust bell from the rocket engine it equates to about 5 pounds of pressure per square inch. I will say it again 5 pounds of pressure per square inch.....you are not going to dig a crater in the moon with less pressure than a strong leaf blower. Again you accuse people like me of being a sheep and blindly believing what the government says. It is not true, I actually spent the time to research almost every conspiracy claim surrounding the moon landings and found them all to be based in flawed understanding of scientific principles. I hope these two explanations help you understand a few of your misconceptions of the moon landings. If you have other questions about the moon landings, 9/11 I would be happy to discuss them with you but please limit them to just one or two per post. I always have a good time talking with you because unlike a lot of your conspiracy brethren you are capable of having a civil discussion. I hope you are having a nice weekend.
    3
  24. Peter, how is it going. Let me ask you a honest question. Do you deliberately ignore what I reply to your posts with. Or do you have issues with short term memory? I have explained to you at least TWICE why your position on the Van Allen Belts is 100% WRONG. I also like how you either deliberately misquoted the NASA engineer when he was talking about the Orion spacecraft of you did not watch it very closely. In that video the engineer SPECIFICALLY says they had to test the spacecrafts ELECTRONICS in the Van Allen Belts. That the radiation might damage the guidance system or on board computers. So let me state this AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME. The Van Allen Belts are composed of CHARGED PARTICLE RADIATION NOT X-RAY OR GAMMA RAY RADIATION. Peter you could live for THREE MONTHS IN THE VAN ALLEN BELTS before you received a lethal does of radiation. Charged particle radiation is far less dangerous to people than high EM band radiation like X-Ray and Gamma ray radiation. Charged particle radiation is however very destructive to modern electronics, it can destroy a unshielded CPU in seconds. I hope you are also aware that trying to fly a lander on Earth and flying one in a vacuum and a 1/6th gravity environment is completely different. There was no reliable way to test a actual spacecraft on Earth. They did build a full scale simulator that simulated the landing procedure. The astronauts had hundreds of hours in the simulator. Just because you do not seem to understand basic science and physics does not mean it is bullshit. Only that you CHOOSE to believe it is because you do not want to spend the time educating yourself on how they accomplished these things.
    3
  25. If you HONESTLY believe that than you know ZERO about military aviation. Yes the Arrow could fly faster......BIG DEAL. The Arrow was NOT a fighter. It could NOT dogfight....it was designed to intercept large unmaneuvering targets. It could not turn for shit. A single F-35 could shoot down Arrows at will until it's ammunition ran out.
    3
  26. Peter most of your points about the moon landings come from a lack of understanding of scientific principle. I will use your claim that there should have been a crater below the lunar lander. Sir you obviously do not understand how the physics change in a vacuum. The pressures the thrusters would enact on the environment would only be a fraction of what they would do on earth because there is no atmosphere to interact with. the Van Allen belts. The Astronauts were able to pass through them because the speed of the craft. To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons. And these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. At the end of the program, the agency determined that its astronauts had avoided the large radiation doses many feared would ground flights to the Moon. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials.
    2
  27. It is what I meant but I think my joke did not flay. Get it heard animals...they repeat what they hear hehehe
    2
  28. Peter the lose lunar soul that you see the astronauts make footprints in was 2 to 3 inches deep at the most. Below that was rock or very hard soil. When the lander made it's decent at a altitude of about 50 feet it began kicking up the soil. By the time the lander was on the surface of the moon most of the soil immediately under the rocket was cleared away. You say what you see defies the laws of physics....than I say to you sir go to the library and start reading. Your understanding of physics is obviously very limited. You keep thinking that the exhaust of the rocket is going to interact with the environment exactly like it does on earth. IT DOES NOT. In the vacuum of space it will interact with the environment at a tiny FRACTION of what it would in a environment with a atmosphere. You use the term HUGE rocket.....again this is a clear indication that your knowledge of the Apollo program is severely limited. The Apollo landing module rocked at more than 30%, so 3000 pounds of thrust in a vacuum would feel like a stiff breeze nothing more. Your assumption that the rocket is going to have a huge impact on the surface of the moon is just false.
    2
  29. It is only fake to paranoid schizophrenics like yourself. The SCIENTIFIC data is CONCLUSIVE. If you bother to take the time to do some actual research yourself you will find that all of the bullshit conspiracy theories on how the moon landings were fake are a combination of junk science, paranoid delusion, and outright lies. There is not ONE shred of scientifically verifiable evidence that the moon landings were faked.
    2
  30. lol yes you don't do any research. Or the only research you think you do is reading conspiracy web sites. The Apollo one fire was a accident brought on by a design flaw. The oxygen supply in the craft was PURE OXYGEN. Someone miscalculated during the design phase and did not realize how flammable pure oxygen was. All it took was a single spark to ignite the atmosphere inside the command module. The design was altered and we did not have that problem again
    2
  31. So let me ask you a serious question. Have you verified the truths behind the claims of the mysterious deaths or are you just repeating what you read off a conspiracy web site or heard somewhere?
    2
  32. Ok I just did a quick 5 minute search and guess what I found. Thomas Ronald Brown's report was critical of NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION not NASA. http://www.clavius.org/baron.html His report actually exonerated NASA of responsibility of the Apollo 1 fire and set the blame directly on North American Aviation. NASA had ZERO reason to kill him in fact he would have been considered a strong ALLY of NASA. This is exactly how conspiracy bullshit gets started. Someone takes a few facts about a story and twists them slightly to fit their agenda and bam conspiracy theory is born.
    2
  33. Another quick five minute search on Paul Jocobs. Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, no affiliation with the Department of Geology. interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond, only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days. Notice how this claim does not mention WHO he interviewed by name? If you look up this claim you will find a few subtle variations on the story, for example your site had him listed as a investigator for the US Department of Geology. Sniff sniff....I smell bullshit. Again this is how conspiracy theories are formed. People read unsubstantiated bullshit on the internet and assume it is true.
    2
  34. The stuff Jesse Marcel came across in that field milar have seen alien to him. Mylar was a brand new material and not very many people had seen it before. When you read the ORIGINAL accounts of Jesse Marcel all he found was debris scattered in a field. The strange foil substance he describes sounds a lot like milar. It wasn't until the myth had gone a few generations that whole alien aircraft, bodies, indestructible metals are introduced into the Roswell mythos.
    2
  35. I think flying disk was just a term he used. When people started freaking out about potential flying saucers the Army changed the story.
    2
  36. It is how conspiracy theory works. They pretend any reasonable scientific explanation of the flawed reasoning behind their theories does not exist. I go through it with the 9/11 conspiracy morons all day.
    2
  37. Peter, the space suites are PRESSURIZED. A human being could not survive in a vacuum even if they had air to breath.
    2
  38. Peter, take a deep breath and calm down. Explain to me what you do not understand. I thought I was pretty clear when I said the interior of the space suits where the astronauts are are pressurized. The astronauts are not experiencing a vacuum at all, inside the space suit it feels just like they are on earth. How can I make you understand it any clearer.
    2
  39. Hey Peter, I found a excellent explanation from a photography vantage point of why the moon pictures look like they do. http://www.skywise711.com/Skeptic/MoonPics/MoonPics.html I hope this helps explain your misconceptions of what moon pictures are supposed to look like.
    2
  40. WOW Peter you would think by now you would understand that the reason you believe the moon landings were fake nonsense is because you lack a basic understanding of science, physics, photography. The Earth is the right size in the moon photographs. A combination of the field of view of the camera, no atmospheric magnification effect and probably some other stuff I forgot makes the earth the size it is supposed to be. Only people who are ignorant like you would believe this nonsense. Without knowing the exact parameters of the camera and lens used, and what, if any, cropping or other adjustment has been done, then it's impossible to say how large, or small, the Earth should appear in an image. If I take a picture of the moon with my widest angle lens (18mm) it'll appear to be a very small size, whereas if I use my highest zoom (300mm) it'll be much bigger, covering a lot more of the image frame. Please TAKE TIME TO EDUCATE YOURSELF. The ignorance on display in each of your posts is a scathing indictment of the American education system. If it is producing functionally illiterate people like you this country is doomed. http://www.hasaan.com/2012/08/debunking-moon-conspiracy-theories.html
    2
  41. Peter, have you not figured it out yet. You are completely ignorant of basic science, physics and photography. Since you do not understand these principles you automatically fall back into it is fake. EVERY argument you have brought up has been proved wrong. At this point it has been at least 10-15 points. Why are you not catching onto the fact you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer yet? Here is the good news though. It is never too late, you can start educating yourself if you are willing to put the time in. I am not talking about reading stuff on the internet and assuming it is true. I am talking about researching peoples claims yourself. Find out what experts in the related scientific disciplines have to say about it and make a informed decision for yourself.
    2
  42. Actually it is still on the moon. Their waste and trash were left in bags close to the lunar module shortly before leaving the lunar surface.
    2
  43. Well it is smart to never accept what a government, agency, or even a supposed expert in a field has to say on face value. I always try and do my own research into what people are saying to try and educate myself on the subject matter. I am not always right and I am not a genius by any means. What is even scarier is that your son had a science teacher who tried to perform such a horrible experiment and when it went wrong could not explain why. Whomever that teacher is, if what you said is true they have NO BUSINESS teaching children anything. What is funny is that the surface of the moon is not that bright. The astronauts compared it in places to asphalt. Since it is only reflecting 12% of the sunlight it is easy to see why it appears so bright at night. I know you think we did not go to the moon, however do you believe it is possible for unmanned craft to get there?
    2
  44. I will disagree with the control over oil bits in your conspiracy claims. If you look at what nations got contracts to redevelop the Iraqi oil infrastructure after the war it wasn't American companies. However I do believe you are right to a extent. I think the business of war itself is the prime motivator that has kept the United States in a perpetual state of war since 1941. The military industrial complex realized how much money there was to be made in the business of war and ensured a never ending series of boogymen to scare the American people with to ensure a limited support for small limited wars. It is also why I believe that the military is always handcuffed and we never try and actually win a war. There is no money to be made if we go into Afghanistan, stomp the shit our of them and the war is over 45 days later. It is much better to keep the military on a leash and drag it out for 15 years............THAT IS HOW YOU GET PAID. President Eisenhower in his farewell address warned the American people about the ever growing influence of the military industrial complex over our foreign policy and political system in general. Nobody listened. P.p. Afghanistan does not produce oil or have any know oil reserves. They do however produce most of the worlds opium, the CIA has a long history of trafficking drugs. Can you think of a better way to improve the bottom line than controlling the supply?
    2
  45. I will disagree with you as well on 9/11. Not that I believe the 9/11 commission report it is garbage. I will disagree on the principle of accusation requires proof. I know immediately you will say operation northwoods, that in itself is not proof. Peter there are rooms full of guys thinking up shit to do. There were thousands of operations that were proposed and rejected. Just because someone though something up does not mean it happened. Look at the X-Files spin off the Lone Gunman. In the first episode rogue elements withing the Government hijacked a plane remotely and were going to crash it into the world trade center and blame it on islamic terrorists. That is a fantastic if not creepy coincidence. That does not mean Chris Carter, the producer had advanced knowledge of 9/11. Go look up the old book called "Futility" it was written in the late 1800's. It was about a cruise ship called the Titan. It was the largest ship ever built. So large in fact they said it was unsinkable. On her maiden voyage she hit a iceberg, because she was considered unsinkable the ship had only enough lifeboats for half the passengers. This is a work of fiction written about 15 years before the Titanic. Strange and fantastic coincidences happen around us all the time. I got into 9/11 conspiracy when the video Loose Change came out. What got my attention is when they made the claim that no plane hit the Pentagon. I think I told you this before but I was a eyewitness to the attack on the Pentagon. Granted I only saw the plane for 3-5 seconds max. I saw it hit the building. So I began to think if that part of their video is 100% bullshit, what about the rest of it. I have researched almost every 9/11 claim out there. To a T they are all based on bad science, things taken way out of context, or outright lies. That does not mean there are not a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11. There is a strong Israeli connection to 9/11. That has been swept under the rug. A Mossad cell was operating out of a front company called "Urban Movers". They were located across the river from the WTC in New Jersey. A group of Mossad agents were caught filming the attacks and celebrating. They were arrested and held in jail for over 120 days before they were released. Those not arrested that day fled back to Israel abandoning the business and everything in it. Once the Mossad agents were released from jail they too flew back to Israel. What was the Mossad doing operating withing the United States? Why did one of Urban Movers vans trigger positive to a bomb sniffing dog? Again very suspicious but in itself not proof. A small group of people seemed to have foreknowledge of 9/11 and in the days before the attack made a lot of futures moves that involved most of the main companies involved in 9/11 and made millions of dollars. The FCC "Investigated" them but cleared them of any wrong doing. That kind of stinks to me but it is a suspicion not evidence or proof.
    2
  46. LOL you are incorrect sir. With science there is this thing called the scientific method. Say I make a scientific discovery, I will write a paper detailing my findings and the exact methodology I used to come to my conclusions. I will than submit my paper for peer review. Independent scientists with no connection tome or my research will attempt to replicate my findings. If they can duplicate my findings my discovery moves from being a theory to being a FACT. If my findings can not be replicated and in science this happens a lot. That theory is now disproved. The cool thing is ANYONE can perform the experiments and check the findings for themselves, So science is not a religion sir. Science is theories and facts. Religion on the other hand is believing in all sorts of ridiculous bullshit. Invisible sky wizards, talking snakes, zombies, vampires, etc. Religion is the absence of thought the absence of facts.
    2
  47. @Ronald Nixon The ascent module of the lander only weighed 10,300 pounds. In a 1/6th gravity environment it effectively weighed 1,716 pounds. The ascent module rocket produced 3,500 pounds of pressure. The exhaust bell of the ascent engine was 34 inches in diameter giving a surface area of 907 square inches. That means the pressure per square inch of the ascent module was 3.85 inches. It is NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND. It is only sorcery to people like you illiterate in the sciences.7
    2
  48. Considering it actually flew it can be said that it was the fastest bomber to ever fly.
    2
  49. I guarantee those Chinese companies hacked Boston Dynamics computers and stole all of their IP.
    2
  50. I was replying to someone else in the thread, not you sir. Sorry for the mix up.
    2