discoverychannel.ca — Some of the greatest scientific hoaxes of all time ... typically pulled off until technology caught up with the scope of the hoax. From Stone-age tribes found in the present day to the announcement that blondes will be extinct in 200 years.
Mar 31, 2008 View in Crawl 4
groovemasterApr 1, 2008
It's still a fact that it could have been installed later by an unmanned mission. You may not like it, and it may not help strengthen your argument, but it could have been.So you agree that the only reason America would have to land on the moon is to brag about how awesome and amazing the USA is.Why wouldn't any other country want to send people to the moon for the same reason, especially given that 1969's technology should be tremendously cheaper and easier to implement within the last decade?Are you telling me that you believe that in hundreds of years time the record of human history will show that one country was able to make several manned flights to the moon and back within the space of a few years, then completely stopped altogether while the rest of the planet concluded that there no point in replicating the achievement?Your argument is basically analogous to saying "Edmund Hillary was able to reach the summit of Everest, and that's why no-one else ever bothered trying. I mean what scientific use is there in climbing the world's tallest mountain? It's been achieved once. There's no point in doing it again."
Closed AccountApr 2, 2008
I understood your point with Everest entirely; i'm saying that it's not a valid comparison with which to make the point. The circumstances surround the American moon landing were very, very unique; and not easily duplicated, as would be possible for any *individual* with a bunch of extra time and cash lying around to summit Everest.And again, echoing tomz17: it really hasn't gotten all that much cheaper. Rocket fuel and manufacturing costs are still just about as expensive (heck probably moreso now with oil prices rising...) and that's going to really be the limiting factor here. technological advances will just make it safer this time around and we'll be able to gather more data, but it will only negligibly cheaper. It still costs about the same to toss a 200lb hunk of flesh out of earth orbit.I'm sure there are a few other nations that might be *able* to; but something on the order of the Cold War is needed to drum up enough public support to get the necessary political machinery rolling in order to appropriate such funding. The Cold War, and the ensuing pissing contest with the commies is the *only* reason we went to the moon; scientific discovery was a nice ancillary benefit but even then the returns were not very great. For another country, or even this country, to send a man to the moon would be an utter waste of resources (especially given the state of robotics), and this is recognized by almost every scientist that would work on such a project.Nothing then or now matches the *liquid, disposable* assets of the US military during the Cold War; the public (even the international public) thought that the very future of the world as we know it was at stake; the success of the moon landing *directly* impacted them, and so passing off spending bills for random dick-off technological marvels was easy.Right now the only way that a moon-landing project could cut through all the red-tape, bureaucracy, checks&balances, lobbying groups, oversight committees, etc. is if terrorists were trying to get to the moon. The "War on Terror" is the modern "Cold War", only this time the militarization of space is not a strategical asset. If we (not just the US, UN, and everyone else involved) had been redirecting the money from the war in Iraq, we would probably have a man on *mars* by now; but like I said, this offers no strategical advantage, so there is no money for it.
brexiansApr 2, 2008
NICE!!
argusbargusApr 4, 2008
Dr. Griffin interviewed the same set of people (including the aviation & military experts who participated in the 911 events), except he tackled the issue from a purely logical and informed point of view. What is your point?It's called faith when you believe in something contrary to the facts. Good luck with you and your faith. BTW, what do you call your religion?
dancercotillionApr 12, 2008
The article is decent, but the comments from the ignorant masses at the bottom are the best part.For instance..."there is way too much weird stuff to believe in these days does anyone really even believe in eveolution anymore? There is no scientific evidence that evolution was even happened monkeys turning into humans come on lets get real!!!"I lol'd. Hard.
dancercotillionApr 12, 2008
The article is decent, but the comments from the ignorant masses at the bottom are the best part. For instance..."there is way too much weird stuff to believe in these days does anyone really even believe in eveolution anymore? There is no scientific evidence that evolution was even happened monkeys turning into humans come on lets get real!!!" I lol'd. Hard.
goodinohioOct 28, 2008
Global Warming #1
cyphrediasOct 28, 2008
I put the odds at 70% that some or all of it was faked. But it doesn't matter. The USA is sinking like the Titanic and it makes no sense to re-arrange the deck chairs or complain about the song the band is playing. Although I do complain so that make me a hypocrite, but a hypocrite with a good heart. Chuck Baldwin for President!!!!