Tony Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The suits worn by the astronauts were made by a company called Hamilton Standard, which is located less than 5 miles from my home. Several of their very capable engineers and technicians are friends of mine, they're so brilliant, they even know how to spell mysterious. I showed them your post, and they asked me to thank you for the joke. It was a joke, wasn't it? No! I apologize:hihi: They weren't (predominantly) "rubber and plastic" either. In fact I have some genuine NASA space suit material not more than six feet from me right now and it's definitely fabric, very much like cotton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 They weren't (predominantly) "rubber and plastic" either. In fact I have some genuine NASA space suit material not more than six feet from me right now and it's definitely fabric, very much like cotton. No Tony, you're wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Dr. Brian Cox and Moloch say space suits are made from rubber. And that's an absolute fact!!!!! You only have to watch this video, which tells the truth about this. Wake up and stop being a sheep!!! ! !! !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 No Tony, you're wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both Dr. Brian Cox and Moloch say space suits are made from rubber. And that's an absolute fact!!!!! You only have to watch this video, which tells the truth about this. Wake up and stop being a sheep!!! ! !! !!!!! I thought it was Brain Fox according to the first time Dabuckle Truthlogic mentioned him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I thought it was Brain Fox according to the first time Dabuckle Truthlogic mentioned him? Sorry, you're right. ... Do you think I used enough exclamation marks? I'm not sure I got my point across? Edit: !!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spineless Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 to Tony Erikson: Since you asked about the publicised fact about the spy satellites, here you have a link: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/geoeye-1-super/ "...since the 1970s, spy satellites that "can read newspaper headlines in Red Square." This suggests very high resolution indeed; I wonder what they can read today?..." So there you go. Let me thank you for the bovine excrement expletive. I loved it. You're a gent. To Barleycorn, what a gem of a man. You certainly have a way with words, don't you? Are you a relative of Forest Gump? Thank you to all the ppl who have provided positive and constructive input here, be it facts taken from scientific papers or links to fact based pages. However, I remain unconvinced and open minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 However, I remain unconvinced and open minded. Being open minded does not mean sitting on the fence and not taking a position on a given issue, it means being able to be convinced by evidence. You have seen the evidence and have denied it, that is the exact opposite of being open minded. And by the way the resolution on that image looks very similar to the 1 square metre per pixel estimate put forward earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 to Tony Erikson: Since you asked about the publicised fact about the spy satellites, here you have a link: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/geoeye-1-super/ The more pertinant quote from that article is this: There’s one catch for Google: While the GeoEye-1 will provide imagery to the NGA at the maximum resolution of 43 cm, Google will only receive images at a 50-cm resolution because of a government restriction, Brender explained. If the best imagery available in 2008 is 43cm/pixel, there's no way it can have been 2cm/pixel or less in the 70's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spineless Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 No, I haven't seen the evidence you are talking about. In fact, if you read the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings it quite clearly states that there is no need to be in the moon to put a ray reflector there as the soviets have done. The lunar rocks collected during the Apollo missions match the ones recovered from Alaska and the ones owned by the russians. That doesn't mean they were there to collect them. I'm being sceptic and yes, open minded. Just because you show me videos and links from firm believers doesn't mean I have to take them at face value. Now the technology is there, so I'm asking, has any third party got any photographic evidence? So far, no. There you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spineless Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Yes, Dosxuk, you're right, but they still publicised that fact even if at the time was not technologically possible to do what they claimed to do. So, do I have to believe the landings? I want to see a picture, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Yes, Dosxuk, you're right, but they still publicised that fact even if at the time was not technologically possible to do what they claimed to do. So, do I have to believe the landings? I want to see a picture, that's all. No, but you'll look like a bit of a freak if you don't. There's a simply overwhelming amount of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.