By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 30 November 2010
mrstickball said:
highwaystar101 said:
peace_lover said:

No Offense.., but since what they have discovered are beyond the others technology to reach, or too hard to proof its falsity by others.., it seem they're aready spewing crap like no others..., No offence, but nowadays.., people seem to be "forced" to believe whatever they said, whatever they found, since most people are ignorant at its best.., yeah, i'm no scientist, but judging from their bad track record about fake moon landing..., i'm not buying it anymore..

Seriously, the moon landings were not faked. Here's a few reason why...

 

  • You can bounce lasers off a mirror left there by the Apollo astronauts.
  • When you analyse the videos of people walking on the moon their motions cannot be explained by anything other than a low level of gravity (no, the footage isn't slowed down, and no they are not on wires).
  • Videos were made of a feather and a hammer falling at the same speed, which is only possible in a vacuum. No vacuum chambers existed in 1966 capable of holding a convincing looking film set. It could have only been on the moon.
  • They've even taken photos of the landing sites of Apollo 11 and 14 where you can see evidence of the human activity.
  • The Soviets had the means to track the Apollo missions, and yet they never claimed it was a hoax. Despite the fact that exposing it as a hoax would have been a huge hammer blow for the USA during the cold war. (Essentially the biggest sceptics of all are satisfied).

And to be quite frank, all the "evidence" you hear against people going to the moon is usually easily explainable.

And they haven't found alien life, NASA have just said that they are going to discuss a piece of evidence that will help in the search of life. Nothing has been found.

Moon hoaxers are the most aggrivating people on Earth. 10 years from now, SpaceX will be selling rides to the moon - when that is the case, shouldn't one think that just *maybe* we could of done it with 20x more funding a few decades ago?

All hoax evidence is based on very small, objectionable issues...They totally deny all the sound arguments. After all, we've been sending stuff in space for decades now - why is it so impossible to believe that once we've left Earth, we haven't gone the few extra days' journey to the closest object to us?

I know, it's not infeasible to accept that man landed on the moon. Especially when there has been many powerful motivations to do it and it is within the reaches of the existing technology.

I love the flag argument, where they claim the waving is proof that they existed in some kind of atmosphere. But when you watch the video the flag is actually knocked, and waves for a lot longer than it would if it was knocked on Earth, indicating that there is no friction from the air.

Therefore the flag had to of been in a vacuum. How's the only way it could have been in a vacuum? If it was on the moon.

The evidence they actually cite to try and disprove the moon landings actually contains conclusive evidence in itself that the event took place on the moon.



Around the Network
Porcupine_I on 30 November 2010

oh, come on guys!

this is a gaming forum!

...we should be used to the fact that announced announcements tend to disappoint!

 



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

highwaystar101 on 30 November 2010
A203D said:

Yeah, i agree with you highwaystar, its most definitly not intelligent life. but some type of cells they've found that could indicate a link to cells in the human body or organic matter.

a popular theory is that life on earth actully came from a comet that colloided into the earth and introduced foreign molecules into chemistry of our world. thus life evolved from molecules that came from the comet. i think it could be big if they've found evidence of this comet 'theory' happening somewhere else. therefore it could indicate the source of life in this world.

the part of physics to do with large celestial masses is based on Eienstien's work, and based on his theory nothing travel faster than light. and the closest star to us 'Alpha Centuri' is 4 and half years away travelling at the speed of light, thus even if that were possible, based on the laws of physics as we know them, its impossible for a human being within their lifetime to travel to other solar systems and meet the 'aliens' there. suggesting of course that intelligent life does exist in another solar system in our galaxy.

i think it could be an important discovery, if we have some pictures, etc. of some interesting celestial mass, perhaps they've found another planet like ours in another solar system. my rational behind this is the Voyager project. i dont know the details highwaystar, but perhaps you could clarify. i presume that the 2 spacecraft are still travelling away from us and still transmitting data, for the 20 years i think, maybe they've got some new data from those??

Yup, the Voyager mission will be running for another ten ears if we are lucky. I doubt they've given us any new data though, they're in deep space, they wont reach another star for centuries (by which time they'll have been inactive for years). Nothing's happening where they are.

As for panspermia. I can't say whether it's true or not, I don't think there's any conclusive evidence indicating that fact. But I think panspermia wouldn't have transported life. I think in the early solar system some of the comets that (hypothetically I believe) gave Earth it's water would have carried organic matter that could have played a part in abiogenesis, that would be as far as I would go. However, that would also indicate that the matter to create life is common throughout many bodies.

I think the fact that we've discovered organic matter on comets is significant evidence for this.

Also, if you could travel to another star at near the speed of light, you could travel to another star within a life time as time is relative (the faster you travel towards the speed of light, the slower your time ticks). It would be feasible for some hyper advanced alien race capable of travelling close to the speed of light (I would love to know where they got the energy from to do that lol) they could travel to many stars within a single life time. But because there are hundreds of billions of stars in the milky way I find it unlikely that they come across other intelligent life very often (if at all). The milky way would require a lot of exploration.



routsounmanman on 30 November 2010
libellule said:
routsounmanman said:
libellule said:
leatherhat said:
postofficebuddy said:

 

Oh. My. God. If alien life really has been discovered, even if it's just micro-organisms, the universe as we know it might be fundamentally changed after this. This is beyond huge.

 


Not really, life elsewhere in the universe is pretty much a given to anyone with a rational view of the universe. 

it is not a given, it is far from being 100% sure

it is just a strong possibility

Us being the sole form of life in the entire universe, makes us nothing more than an anomaly. Therefore, extraterrestrial life is a given. Simple math.

nah, you can turn it how you want, life somewhere on the universe is "only" highly probable.

but it is neither obvious, neithere sure, neither proven. We may, indeed, be this anomaly you are mentionning ...

Also, the way you are "thinking" remember me those guys that, because universe or life seems so complex and so well organized, consider the existence of god is ... a given ...

what do you think ?

At least millions of planets identical to ours throughout the whole universe, why no other life form? Why just us humans?

On your second point, on the contrary I am an Atheist. I believe the sole reason no other life forms can would be the existence of a God, him creating only us.

If we go by math, there's a 99,999999...% possibility we're not alone. That's a 100% to me.



My themeforest portfolio:

http://themeforest.net/user/corethemes/portfolio

Kudistos Megistos on 30 November 2010
 
WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.

 

impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life.

 

the search

 

It's hard to get excited about this. They've probably discoved another planet in a goldilocks zone or something.

 

libellule said:

Also, the way you are "thinking" remember me those guys that, because universe or life seems so complex and so well organized, consider the existence of god is ... a given ...

what do you think ?


That's a pretty contrived comparison.

Does it really bother you so much that the person you were originally responding to said something that may have been a little hyperbolic? You're making a huge issue of something very small. I hate the overuse of the word pedantic, but that's what you're being. Casual conversation leads to casual overuse of words like "all" and "every" and "definitely". By interpreting such things literally, you are showing an ignorance of the distinction between the appropriate writing style and word choice on an internet message board and the appropriate style and choice in an academic publication.

Either that, or you have some kind of issue with the idea of extra-terrestrial life or the scientific acceptance thereof, and are using this opportunity to vent your frustrations and focusing on a minor oversight in what that person said whilst ignoring the central issue.



Around the Network
De85 on 30 November 2010
highwaystar101 said:
peace_lover said:

No Offense.., but since what they have discovered are beyond the others technology to reach, or too hard to proof its falsity by others.., it seem they're aready spewing crap like no others..., No offence, but nowadays.., people seem to be "forced" to believe whatever they said, whatever they found, since most people are ignorant at its best.., yeah, i'm no scientist, but judging from their bad track record about fake moon landing..., i'm not buying it anymore..

Seriously, the moon landings were not faked. Here's a few reason why...

 

  • You can bounce lasers off a mirror left there by the Apollo astronauts.
  • When you analyse the videos of people walking on the moon their motions cannot be explained by anything other than a low level of gravity (no, the footage isn't slowed down, and no they are not on wires).
  • Videos were made of a feather and a hammer falling at the same speed, which is only possible in a vacuum.*Ninja'd to correct for facts*
  • They've even taken photos of the landing sites of Apollo 11 and 14 where you can see evidence of the human activity.
  • The Soviets had the means to track the Apollo missions, and yet they never claimed it was a hoax. Despite the fact that exposing it as a hoax would have been a huge hammer blow for the USA during the cold war. (Essentially the biggest sceptics of all are satisfied).

 

And to be quite frank, all the "evidence" you hear against people going to the moon is usually easily explainable.

And they haven't found alien life, NASA have just said that they are going to discuss a piece of evidence that will help in the search of life. Nothing has been found.


The bolded has always been what I consider to be the smoking gun in this matter...



mrstickball on 30 November 2010
Cypher1980 said:
mrstickball said:
highwaystar101 said:
peace_lover said:

No Offense.., but since what they have discovered are beyond the others technology to reach, or too hard to proof its falsity by others.., it seem they're aready spewing crap like no others..., No offence, but nowadays.., people seem to be "forced" to believe whatever they said, whatever they found, since most people are ignorant at its best.., yeah, i'm no scientist, but judging from their bad track record about fake moon landing..., i'm not buying it anymore..

Seriously, the moon landings were not faked. Here's a few reason why...

 

  • You can bounce lasers off a mirror left there by the Apollo astronauts.
  • When you analyse the videos of people walking on the moon their motions cannot be explained by anything other than a low level of gravity (no, the footage isn't slowed down, and no they are not on wires).
  • Videos were made of a feather and a hammer falling at the same speed, which is only possible in a vacuum. No vacuum chambers existed in 1966 capable of holding a convincing looking film set. It could have only been on the moon.
  • They've even taken photos of the landing sites of Apollo 11 and 14 where you can see evidence of the human activity.
  • The Soviets had the means to track the Apollo missions, and yet they never claimed it was a hoax. Despite the fact that exposing it as a hoax would have been a huge hammer blow for the USA during the cold war. (Essentially the biggest sceptics of all are satisfied).

And to be quite frank, all the "evidence" you hear against people going to the moon is usually easily explainable.

And they haven't found alien life, NASA have just said that they are going to discuss a piece of evidence that will help in the search of life. Nothing has been found.

Moon hoaxers are the most aggrivating people on Earth. 10 years from now, SpaceX will be selling rides to the moon - when that is the case, shouldn't one think that just *maybe* we could of done it with 20x more funding a few decades ago?

All hoax evidence is based on very small, objectionable issues...They totally deny all the sound arguments. After all, we've been sending stuff in space for decades now - why is it so impossible to believe that once we've left Earth, we haven't gone the few extra days' journey to the closest object to us?


I think it has something to do with the Van Allen belt. Dont bite my head off though. I think they went.

I also think that the whole Space Race thing was a joke though, as it now looks like Russia didnt give a Rats Arse about going to the moon.

Still it was good to spin it as a race against the commies.

Here's the thing:

The radiation in the Van Allen Belt isn't that bad. According to Wikipedia, a sattellite traveling through it gets a dose of 25 Sv per year. Astronauts traveling through the belt are only in the belt approximately 1 hour going to and from the moon.

It takes a dose of 1 Sv in an hour to cause health concerns. The astronauts were exposed to approximately 1/9000th of the dosage needed to cause health concerns.

That is why the Van Allen Belt issue is far, far overblown. Most arguments are. The problem with the moon hoax issues is that if your spending the Delta-V to get to LEO or Geosyncronous orbit....The moon isn't very difficult to get to (you've already spent a ton of cash/resources to get to Geosyncronous orbit). Therefore, it makes absolutely no economical sense as to why you wouldn't go to the moon, given the NASA resources.

My comments aren't directed at you, but just the people that think its crazy. Yeah, there are some questions I have about every second of lunar footage....But I can't use my small questions to justify disbelief in a major project undertaken by millions of people. Furthermore, one of my old bosses worked for NASA and has done an insane amount of research into the lunar landings....You can't have so much data, people, information, photos, stories, and such and have 100.0% of it be faked.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Mr.Metralha on 30 November 2010
leatherhat said:

Oh boy they found some microbes on a rock. Fun.


Actually it is amino-acids.

Its a primal compound for generating life.

And it is not the first time a meteor impacts on earth bringing early forms of molecules that could sustain life.

I wouldn't get hyped for this. If it was really a big deal they would be telling about it to the world right now.



Farmageddon on 30 November 2010
highwaystar101 said:
mrstickball said:
highwaystar101 said:
peace_lover said:

No Offense.., but since what they have discovered are beyond the others technology to reach, or too hard to proof its falsity by others.., it seem they're aready spewing crap like no others..., No offence, but nowadays.., people seem to be "forced" to believe whatever they said, whatever they found, since most people are ignorant at its best.., yeah, i'm no scientist, but judging from their bad track record about fake moon landing..., i'm not buying it anymore..

Seriously, the moon landings were not faked. Here's a few reason why...

 

  • You can bounce lasers off a mirror left there by the Apollo astronauts.
  • When you analyse the videos of people walking on the moon their motions cannot be explained by anything other than a low level of gravity (no, the footage isn't slowed down, and no they are not on wires).
  • Videos were made of a feather and a hammer falling at the same speed, which is only possible in a vacuum. No vacuum chambers existed in 1966 capable of holding a convincing looking film set. It could have only been on the moon.
  • They've even taken photos of the landing sites of Apollo 11 and 14 where you can see evidence of the human activity.
  • The Soviets had the means to track the Apollo missions, and yet they never claimed it was a hoax. Despite the fact that exposing it as a hoax would have been a huge hammer blow for the USA during the cold war. (Essentially the biggest sceptics of all are satisfied).

And to be quite frank, all the "evidence" you hear against people going to the moon is usually easily explainable.

And they haven't found alien life, NASA have just said that they are going to discuss a piece of evidence that will help in the search of life. Nothing has been found.

Moon hoaxers are the most aggrivating people on Earth. 10 years from now, SpaceX will be selling rides to the moon - when that is the case, shouldn't one think that just *maybe* we could of done it with 20x more funding a few decades ago?

All hoax evidence is based on very small, objectionable issues...They totally deny all the sound arguments. After all, we've been sending stuff in space for decades now - why is it so impossible to believe that once we've left Earth, we haven't gone the few extra days' journey to the closest object to us?

I know, it's not infeasible to accept that man landed on the moon. Especially when there has been many powerful motivations to do it and it is within the reaches of the existing technology.

I love the flag argument, where they claim the waving is proof that they existed in some kind of atmosphere. But when you watch the video the flag is actually knocked, and waves for a lot longer than it would if it was knocked on Earth, indicating that there is no friction from the air.

Therefore the flag had to of been in a vacuum. How's the only way it could have been in a vacuum? If it was on the moon.

The evidence they actually cite to try and disprove the moon landings actually contains conclusive evidence in itself that the event took place on the moon.


Nah, haven't you heard? They built an entire vacuum planetarium somewhere in the desert. They also used lifters to create anti-gravity.

But, seriously, it's just as you said, they don't seem to have found life. It sounds more like they might have made some progress either on where to look for it or in the methods with which to do so.



Dallinor on 30 November 2010
routsounmanman said:
libellule said:
routsounmanman said:
libellule said:
leatherhat said:
postofficebuddy said:

 

Oh. My. God. If alien life really has been discovered, even if it's just micro-organisms, the universe as we know it might be fundamentally changed after this. This is beyond huge.

 


Not really, life elsewhere in the universe is pretty much a given to anyone with a rational view of the universe. 

it is not a given, it is far from being 100% sure

it is just a strong possibility

Us being the sole form of life in the entire universe, makes us nothing more than an anomaly. Therefore, extraterrestrial life is a given. Simple math.

nah, you can turn it how you want, life somewhere on the universe is "only" highly probable.

but it is neither obvious, neithere sure, neither proven. We may, indeed, be this anomaly you are mentionning ...

Also, the way you are "thinking" remember me those guys that, because universe or life seems so complex and so well organized, consider the existence of god is ... a given ...

what do you think ?

At least millions of planets identical to ours throughout the whole universe, why no other life form? Why just us humans?

On your second point, on the contrary I am an Atheist. I believe the sole reason no other life forms can would be the existence of a God, him creating only us.

If we go by math, there's a 99,999999...% possibility we're not alone. That's a 100% to me.


Well we don't know why we exist, and there's always debate as to how it actually happened, so concluding for a certainty that we're not alone when we don't even fully understand the circumstances of our own existence is a bit premature in my opinion.

Anyway, all you have to do is look around the earth, there a plenty of examples of unexplainable occurrences that baffle our logic, or things happening well within what was thought a .0000001% of scientific error.

I wouldn't be surprised if we were alone. A freak anomaly in the universe.