I am a Moonie

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Remember ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

When on a campaign of disagreement, please try to start at the top of this triangle.

To be fair, I'm actually under that pyramid, since all I'm really doing here is pulling faces, blowing raspberries, and making chicken noises.

That's the second time that triangular card was pulled out on this thread. Something about the conspiracy theories that enrages some of ye.

What puts a little doubt in my mind is the escape velocity on the moon - 2.38 km/s - that's fast. I just cannot picture that little pod reaching that speed even though I'm assuming it did in the back of my mind. I just cannot picture it nor have we found out what fuel is needed to get off the moon either yet. Next I'll be wanting to know the detail of the propulsion system of the little pod.

I'm assuming it's all kosher I just have the inability to imagine it and perhaps need some more detail as evidence.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Remember ...

Auditor #9 wrote:

When on a campaign of disagreement, please try to start at the top of this triangle.

To be fair, I'm actually under that pyramid, since all I'm really doing here is pulling faces, blowing raspberries, and making chicken noises.

That's the second time that triangular card was pulled out on this thread. Something about the conspiracy theories that enrages some of ye.

What puts a little doubt in my mind is the escape velocity on the moon - 2.38 km/s - that's fast. I just cannot picture that little pod reaching that speed even though I'm assuming it did in the back of my mind. I just cannot picture it nor have we found out what fuel is needed to get off the moon either yet. Next I'll be wanting to know the detail of the propulsion system of the little pod.

I'm assuming it's all kosher I just have the inability to imagine it and perhaps need some more detail as evidence.

A FAS funded trip to the Kennedy Space Centre would probably fix it.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Well that's a fair whack of info but it's a bit of a letdown and turnaround that the Greens had such convictions and then forget them all of a sudden... Do they have designs do you know, about getting the fluoride out of the water soon ?

I get no hints from my Green friends that the party will do anything to implement its policy. There was a motion put forward to the GP National Council a couple of months ago proposing that the party's policy on fluoridation be reversed! I presume it didn't get enough support, but you see the way the Greens are going.

Quote :

I guess you harbour no such crazy ethnic cleansing conspiracy theories ?

No.

Quote :

And if there isn't a noticeable and appreciable effect when a person drinks fluoridated water then should we really be worried ?

It's slow poisoning. You won't see bodies in the street. Since fluoridation started in Ireland (1964), there has been a significant increase in the incidence of a large number of diseases associated with fluoride ingestion. No medical research has been carried out on this. It's as if the medical profession is afraid to look into it. But the DoHC and the Health Research Board won't fund such research. Several years ago, when Brian Cowen was Minister for Health, he was asked why no research. His answer? Enough research has been done in other countries! That was during the ten years that UCC dentist Prof Helen Whelton was on the Health Research Board (in which she still exerts influence).

Quote :

Here is Alex Jones reporting on sodium fluoride being added to children's milk in schools in the UK

I didn't realize that fluoridated milk had spread so much. It's criminal. I would blame Prof Michael Lennon of the Univ of Sheffield, who's also the head of the British Fluoridation Society. Lennon and his close collaborators, the aforementioned Irish dentists O'Mullane and Whelton, control what the WHO does about fluoride. And, scandalously, criminally, try to make everyone believe that fluoride is a "nutrient".

Look at UCC publications, here:

Quote :

Professor Denis O'Mullane attended the WHO Workshop "Nutrient Minerals in Drinking Water and Potential Consequences of Long Term Consumption of Desalinated and other Low Mineral Content Waters" in Rome, Italy, November 2003. Professor O'Mullane and Dr. Michael Lennon presented a paper prepared by Drs. Lennon and Whelton entitled "Nutrient Minerals in Drinking Water and Potential Consequences of Long Term Consumption of Desalinated and other Low Mineral Content Waters: Fluoride.

Nutrient? It's so blatant. But they keep getting away with it. And the Irish people keep on drinking their fluoride.

Fluoride is not a nutrient of any sort. It's a deadly, cumulative poison.

The fluoride added to Irish "drinking" water is hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is even more toxic than sodium fluoride (which is rat poison).

Ok, fluoride isn't a nutrient, no. Can they claim it occurs naturally and is ingested routinely in the state of nature ? Is there any established correlation between fluoride dosage and some deficiency though in any country ?

Maybe they won't research it here because it'd be too scary. We need a control and an experimental group on which to test for effects. That must exist in Ireland - two communities, one without fluoridation the other with.

Incidences of some conditions could be collected but how would they b related to fluoridation ... ? It's impossible to control and experiment on a population like that.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

I'm assuming it's all kosher I just have the inability to imagine it and perhaps need some more detail as evidence.

A FAS funded trip to the Kennedy Space Centre would probably fix it.

John F. Kennedy wanted America to conquer the Fás of Gravity.

Auditor #9 wrote:

John F. Kennedy wanted America to conquer the Fás of Gravity.

Brilliant!

[I'll reply on the fluoride stuff later.]

What evidence do you need for God's sake Audi. Papal, Ibis and EVM have vicously attacked my opinion on this issue and indeed many more. I have been labelled a conspiracy theorist. A veteran poster to be maligned so cruelly.

But these 3 hostile and dare I say bitter posters have one thing in common. Now they have all three admitted that they are heavy consumers of sausage, bacon and other pork products. The dioxin has done a number on their mental capacities. An early sign of this was when poor EVM had a relapse and reverted to talking about buying bank shares. We all should have known.

The interesting thing is that you Audi seem to have suffered no effects from these toxic pig derivatives. Your brain could be protected by a magnetic field. Slowly bring a compase close to your skull and if the needle starts spinning wildly then the mystery will be solved. Failing that we must do some experiments as your brain may be incased in lead.

Either way your brain should be donated immediately for research as there is no time to lose

youngdan wrote:

What evidence do you need for God's sake Audi. Papal, Ibis and EVM have vicously attacked my opinion on this issue and indeed many more. I have been labelled a conspiracy theorist. A veteran poster to be maligned so cruelly.

youngdanielle, New England, 1656

Maybe it's because I'm a lunatic youngdan ? I believe in astrology you know - I hold it up as geniune science because of the limitations of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity ((a)they don't go together and never will (b)the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle (c) the 'Quark' nonsense and fiasco)

Cancerians are ruled by the moon - we have a special balance of brain fluids and dilution of elements and minerals and chemicals that may make us immune from these dioxins. After all, why did the virulent rash disappear so quickly ?

I'd imagine that people born in Gemini, Libra and Aquarius will be seriously doomed if they have ingested any of these plastic sausages. This prediction will be perfectly in accord with the parameters of my (true) astrological picture of the solar system and living universe.

Don't ye get fresh Denny's there in Boston still ?

I went to NASA during the summer and took a look at the Saturn V rocket and was fascinated by the technology required to get that beast off the ground.

But as I stood there and looked at the Lunar module , I was struck with disbelief that such a contraption could have went to the moon and then lifted back off the surface - first go.

Deride me if you will but it just didn't add up for me

youngdan wrote:

they are heavy consumers of sausage, bacon and other pork products. The dioxin has done a number on their mental capacities.

At last an explanation for WW1 & WW2.

al hamdulillâh.

Squire wrote:

youngdan wrote:

they are heavy consumers of sausage, bacon and other pork products. The dioxin has done a number on their mental capacities.

At last an explanation for WW1 & WW2.

al hamdulillâh.

s'bah u lechayir !

barak u lahu fik

Back here they call them a HOT DOG. The vilest crud ever devoured. Unbefluckingbelieveable. People put mustard on them. Thank God you are immune no matter what the reason.

That is Papal with the cross, middle aged and balding while pretending to be pious. Look at Ibis sitting on his arse enjoying the torture. Even then he believed this auld foolishness about global warming. His paws are out enjoying the heat and he is ignoring the fossil fuels being consumed when it suits him. In the background you have EVM and 905. A grand day out indeed

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

I went to NASA during the summer and took a look at the Saturn V rocket and was fascinated by the technology required to get that beast off the ground.

But as I stood there and looked at the Lunar module , I was struck with disbelief that such a contraption could have went to the moon and then lifted back off the surface - first go.

Deride me if you will but it just didn't add up for me

Well that's it - it's hard to imagine and if it squares then won't you be very surprised at human ingenuity.

The moonn's gravity is one sixth the earth's, there's no atmosphere for the lift-off module to push against and the distance for it to travel is a lot less (it's still feckin high though)

Can you just imagine it getting to 2.38 km/s ?? Maybe it does but it's hard to imagine. Maybe those land rockets they use to break speed limits should be studied here .. and how quickly they get to 600 mph ...

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

I went to NASA during the summer and took a look at the Saturn V rocket and was fascinated by the technology required to get that beast off the ground.

But as I stood there and looked at the Lunar module , I was struck with disbelief that such a contraption could have went to the moon and then lifted back off the surface - first go.

Deride me if you will but it just didn't add up for me

Very well, sir - I deride you. Consider the number of engineers who worked on the Moon Lander, and who were perfectly capable of working out whether what they were designing and building could, or could not, lift off the Moon. There were multiple companies involved in the build - yet nobody said "hey, this can't work". Amazing.

Of course I completely accept your disbelief over that. Absolutely. While you're at it, can you visualise billions of years, or should we just go with the Bible? Any difficulties with evolution?

What any one of us can and cannot visualise tells us absolutely nothing whatsoever about what is possible.

Yep, I'm with ibis on this. I think that some ideas are in need of intolerance and disrespect, and this is one of them. No amount of reason or logic is going to convince the conspiracy types that there was a lunar landing, not even the cold fact that a conspiracy of this sort, over the various lunar missions, would take thousands of people to be in on it, all needing to both keep schtum about the 'truth', plus to be completely on song about the most amazingly technical and detailed lie. It's actually a matter of the gravest insult to the genius and courage of all the astronauts, now proud old men, and of the many great minds that made what they did possible. So, yes, derision is entirely appropriate.

toxic avenger wrote:

Yep, I'm with ibis on this. I think that some ideas are in need of intolerance and disrespect, and this is one of them. No amount of reason or logic is going to convince the conspiracy types that there was a lunar landing, not even the cold fact that a conspiracy of this sort, over the various lunar missions, would take thousands of people to be in on it, all needing to both keep schtum about the 'truth', plus to be completely on song about the most amazingly technical and detailed lie. It's actually a matter of the gravest insult to the genius and courage of all the astronauts, now proud old men, and of the many great minds that made what they did possible. So, yes, derision is entirely appropriate.

My all means disrespect the ideas, but not the people who have them. How sure are you that you've never internalised any of the vast range of mythologies that conspiracy theory has flushed out into the ambient culture ? In the US, there are stats suggesting that 75% of African Americas believe there is an HIV conspiracy against blacks. Given that it is established that the CIA pushed out drugs into black areas, why would they no be hyper suspicious? Up to three quarters of people in the US subscribe to one or another conspiracy theory. The other quarter are probably the ones lacking any interest in current affairs. Is is not more to the point to question the collapse in trust of governments (as seen locally in the Lisbon Referendum) and the failure to educate people in scientific method, than to take the piss out of people ? The people I would be intolerant of are the likes of Alex Jones who cynically foster delusions and make money out of it.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yep, I'm with ibis on this. I think that some ideas are in need of intolerance and disrespect, and this is one of them. No amount of reason or logic is going to convince the conspiracy types that there was a lunar landing, not even the cold fact that a conspiracy of this sort, over the various lunar missions, would take thousands of people to be in on it, all needing to both keep schtum about the 'truth', plus to be completely on song about the most amazingly technical and detailed lie. It's actually a matter of the gravest insult to the genius and courage of all the astronauts, now proud old men, and of the many great minds that made what they did possible. So, yes, derision is entirely appropriate.

My all means disrespect the ideas, but not the people who have them. How sure are you that you've never internalised any of the vast range of mythologies that conspiracy theory has flushed out into the ambient culture ? In the US, there are stats suggesting that 75% of African Americas believe there is an HIV conspiracy against blacks. Given that it is established that the CIA pushed out drugs into black areas, why would they no be hyper suspicious? Up to three quarters of people in the US subscribe to one or another conspiracy theory. The other quarter are probably the ones lacking any interest in current affairs. Is is not more to the point to question the collapse in trust of governments (as seen locally in the Lisbon Referendum) and the failure to educate people in scientific method, than to take the piss out of people ? The people I would be intolerant of are the likes of Alex Jones who cynically foster delusions and make money out of it.

I deride the ideas, I simply pity the people who swallow them. I think of a man like John Glenn (I know he wasn't on a lunar mission, but he embodies the spirit of those who were), a decent and upright individual, an old man now, people like who are effectively being called serial liars and conspirators when they talk of life achievements that they have every right to be proud of. Then I get angry when I read the b*ll*cks that outwardly intelligent people spout about men like him in their hundreds, simply because they can't get their heads around the achievement (they'd doubt that aeroplanes could stay in the air too, if it were happening on another planet, after all, who'd be foolish enough to believe that hundreds of tons of metal could defy gravity...). Then I have absolutely no trouble at all taking the piddle out of the theory when it is put forward.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

Yep, I'm with ibis on this. I think that some ideas are in need of intolerance and disrespect, and this is one of them. No amount of reason or logic is going to convince the conspiracy types that there was a lunar landing, not even the cold fact that a conspiracy of this sort, over the various lunar missions, would take thousands of people to be in on it, all needing to both keep schtum about the 'truth', plus to be completely on song about the most amazingly technical and detailed lie. It's actually a matter of the gravest insult to the genius and courage of all the astronauts, now proud old men, and of the many great minds that made what they did possible. So, yes, derision is entirely appropriate.

My all means disrespect the ideas, but not the people who have them. How sure are you that you've never internalised any of the vast range of mythologies that conspiracy theory has flushed out into the ambient culture ? In the US, there are stats suggesting that 75% of African Americas believe there is an HIV conspiracy against blacks. Given that it is established that the CIA pushed out drugs into black areas, why would they no be hyper suspicious? Up to three quarters of people in the US subscribe to one or another conspiracy theory. The other quarter are probably the ones lacking any interest in current affairs. Is is not more to the point to question the collapse in trust of governments (as seen locally in the Lisbon Referendum) and the failure to educate people in scientific method, than to take the piss out of people ? The people I would be intolerant of are the likes of Alex Jones who cynically foster delusions and make money out of it.

I deride the ideas, I simply pity the people who swallow them. I think of a man like John Glenn (I know he wasn't on a lunar mission, but he embodies the spirit of those who were), a decent and upright individual, an old man now, people like who are effectively being called serial liars and conspirators when they talk of life achievements that they have every right to be proud of. Then I get angry when I read the b*ll*cks that outwardly intelligent people spout about men like him in their hundreds, simply because they can't get their heads around the achievement (they'd doubt that aeroplanes could stay in the air too, if it were happening on another planet, after all, who'd be foolish enough to believe that hundreds of tons of metal could defy gravity...). Then I have absolutely no trouble at all taking the piddle out of the theory when it is put forward.

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

cactus flower wrote:

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

I know exactly what brought this particular manifestation on. A 1970s b-movie called 'Capricorn One'.

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

I know exactly what brought this particular manifestation on. A 1970s b-movie called 'Capricorn One'.

I take it you're not serious. That film was surely seen by a tiny number of people, and remembered by less. A major social/cultural/political phenomenon surely deserves more of an explanation ?

Do you believe in Santa as well. Don't worry about those old astronauts, you have examples of liars all around you and these phoney fools are more of them except I don't see them on TV. They seem a bit reclusive while every other faker is giving speachs for big money.

I like to follow the space program to see the progress being made. A few weeks ago an astronaut lost a tool bag when a grease gun exploded while working on the International Space Station. It was exactly 10 years after the first part was put into orbit. Taking a long time to build this condo in orbit. It is very low at only 220 miles.

But you think Armstrong did the impossible without even a test using a dog. Give the old prick a spanner and let him put the ISS together.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/nov/20/space-shuttle-112008/

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

I know exactly what brought this particular manifestation on. A 1970s b-movie called 'Capricorn One'.

I take it you're not serious. That film was surely seen by a tiny number of people, and remembered by less. A major social/cultural/political phenomenon surely deserves more of an explanation ?

But it was on telly a lot, and many impressionable minds saw it. I really do think that it is that simple for many, perhaps not all, of the conspiracy theorists...

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

I know exactly what brought this particular manifestation on. A 1970s b-movie called 'Capricorn One'.

I take it you're not serious. That film was surely seen by a tiny number of people, and remembered by less. A major social/cultural/political phenomenon surely deserves more of an explanation ?

But it was on telly a lot, and many impressionable minds saw it. I really do think that it is that simple for many, perhaps not all, of the conspiracy theorists...

Would it be a false impression I have that conspiracy theory tends to go with libertarian politics? - a distrust of elites and a belief that any form of centralised social organisation is an assault on the individual.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Do you remember the world before conspiracy theory ? What do you think brought on this onslaught of pitiable foolishness?

I know exactly what brought this particular manifestation on. A 1970s b-movie called 'Capricorn One'.

I take it you're not serious. That film was surely seen by a tiny number of people, and remembered by less. A major social/cultural/political phenomenon surely deserves more of an explanation ?

But it was on telly a lot, and many impressionable minds saw it. I really do think that it is that simple for many, perhaps not all, of the conspiracy theorists...

Would it be a false impression I have that conspiracy theory tends to go with libertarian politics? - a distrust of elites and a belief that any form of centralised social organisation is an assault on the individual.

Hmm...no, I quite like that theory. Libertarians often do seem to be conspiracy theorists. However, some of these myths are media-driven - see for example this article on how articles disproving the various MMR-is-bad theories are simply not carried in the popular press. I suspect as a general rule the willingness of the press to carry myths, and to mythologise, has a large role to play.

On the other hand, the majority of humanity has always subscribed to all kinds of rubbish.

I am going to try to collect some information on this now with some good links. Toxic your point about explaining planes to people is a good point but do you disdain people who really are doubting Thomases especially about advanced technical things ? There are even some simple and neat things in Australia that people here don't have and they would be very handy but people would look at you as if you were mad if you expressed an interest in these apparently minor details such as take-away sachets of ketchup which are very handy in Oz. Hopefully that new poster shutuplaura can maybe send a photo of one of these things and put our take away sachets here to shame.

Explaining some mechanical or technical item to some people goes way beyond explaining even the most widely disparate cultural differences like types of ketchup sachet. Some lads couldn't install a washing machine for instance - they wouldn't have a clue where to start. Worse, they might not even have the mentalisty to think that they even could learn how to install one. Imagine trying to explain a nuclear submarine to these fellas if you knew how it worked ? Or explaining how a compiler in computer lingo might work ??? The Eagle has landed might be an explanation along those lines thus when they can't see it working their first thought is "it's a hoax". Doubting Thomases - do you doubt they exist ?

So maybe this thread could be a small walkthrough (but not on the moon) on the Eagle and other rocket science. We could all expand our brains, you'd never know. The first piece of 'evidence' that we might be able to see with our own eyes if we wanted is the yoke below - a road racer that will be built with a rocket in 2011 in order to break the speed limit currently held by a car or such terrestrial vehicle. Even with the rocket on it and travelling horizontally it cannot reach a speed fast enough to break out of the Moon's pull although I may have my figures wrong please correct me if I haven't.

Quote :

More than a decade after driving their jet-powered Thrust SSC (for super sonic car) an ear-popping 763 miles (1,228 kilometers) per hour, a team of British engineers and pilots has set its sites on a new record: to build a car by 2011 that can travel faster than 1,000 miles (1,610 kilometers) per hour, BBC News reports. The team has already christened its new super sonic vehicle--which will be powered by a rocket bolted to a Eurofighter Typhoon jet engine--the Bloodhound SSC.

The team expects the 42-foot (12.8-meter) long, 6.4-ton Bloodhound SSC to accelerate from zero to 1,050 miles (1,690 kilometers) per hour in just 40 seconds—faster than a bullet shot from a .357 Magnum, which is capable of flying at up to about 962 miles (1,548 kilometers) per hour.) The vehicle's 35.4 inch- (900 millimeter-) diameter wheels will spin so fast that they had to be made from a high-grade titanium to prevent them from splitting apart, the BBC reports.

Scientific American

Moon's escape velocity: 2.38 km/s