Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts
Local Blogs
Miscellaneous


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > This Just In
Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old May 6th, 2008 #1
melcur
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,216
Default NASA lies about Global Warming, but they'd never lie about the moon landing

Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? NASA is fudging data to make it appear as though it's getting warmer, when in fact it is cooling down

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #2
Vox Populae
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,120
Default

You never hear about it the kwa anymore but when I was a child many scientists stated that it was impossible to get to the moon with a living entity aboard a space capsule because of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth which acts as a shield to prevent all but the most radiation resistant lifeforms to enter our bubble in space. At the time they also stated that there was no feasable way to build a space craft to shield the occupants from the radiation because it was able to penetrate through any kind of shielding and radiate the inside of the capsule more or less like putting the animals or people inside in to a microwave and hitting the start button. The space station is in between the Van Allen belt and Earth thus preventing it from being nuked is why it can stay up there.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #3
melcur
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox Populae View Post
You never hear about it the kwa anymore but when I was a child many scientists stated that it was impossible to get to the moon with a living entity aboard a space capsule because of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth which acts as a shield to prevent all but the most radiation resistant lifeforms to enter our bubble in space. At the time they also stated that there was no feasable way to build a space craft to shield the occupants from the radiation because it was able to penetrate through any kind of shielding and radiate the inside of the capsule more or less like putting the animals or people inside in to a microwave and hitting the start button. The space station is in between the Van Allen belt and Earth thus preventing it from being nuked is why it can stay up there.
Those scientists were right, there is no way to avoid the massive doses of radiation one would receive unless they were behind a thick wall of lead, which of course was not aboard any of the Apollo spacecraft as its weight would have exceeded the ability of the Saturn Fives to lift it into space. All the math was done years and years ago, the only people still embracing the moon landing hoax are those that cannot admit that they've been effectively played the sucker.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #4
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Link.



The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

From the NASA website:

Quote:
Stars and the Solstice Sun

Composite Credit & Copyright: Jerry Lodriguss (Catching the Light)

Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.
NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be visible.

Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would be able to see stars while they were on the moon:

www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon? Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?

NASA has been claiming for decades that it is nearly impossible for astronauts to see stars, but now the Astronomy Picture of the Day admits that without an atmosphere, we would see stars even when the sun was shining.

Have you seen the Apollo press conference when Neil Armstrong and Mike Collins said they didn't see stars? The video is on this page:

www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html

What is going on?
The man who drew the picture is Jerry Lodriguss. He is a professional photographer, and his website is full of photographs of the universe:

www.astropix.com/INDEX.HTM

In Hufschmid's more detailed PDF file about the Apollo moon landing hoax, he mentioned this particular man on page 15:

www.EricHufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf

Hufschmid sent him an e-mail a couple years ago to "Get a clue!" Has Jerry Lodriguss finally figured out that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax? Or has he known it was a hoax for many years?

Why would NASA put this on their website and admit that stars would be seen during daytime when there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight?

Is it possible that people are starting to rebel against the corruption? Is it possible that people are tired of maintaining the Apollo moon landing hoax? Are American men finally behaving like men rather than frightened children?

Or didn't NASA realize what they were doing when they put this page on their site? Will this particular page be deleted as soon as they realize what they just did? Will they frantically struggle to devise a flimsy excuse to explain this page?

NASA to crash a probe into moon in 2008

They call it LCROSS. NASA wants to analyze the moon to see if there is water on it. Why don't they just analyze the hundreds of kilograms that they claim the Apollo astronauts brought back from the moon? NASA's excuse is that the astronauts only took samples near the surface! KQED has a video describing the LCROSS program:
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/view/26



Anthony Colaprete is the LCROSS "Principal Investigator". Does he and other people at NASA actually believe that they sent people to the moon? Or do they all realize that NASA is just a big hoax?

www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/colaprete.html
What has NASA done in their decades of existence besides lie to us and waste our money? Are the two Mars rovers really on Mars? Or are they in an Australian desert?

Who wants to become an astronaut?
A lot of people might like to be an astronaut, but it requires keeping secret about NASA's many crimes. For example, have you noticed that none of the astronauts in the space station ever mention what the stars look like? Or what Mars looks like?
How about this report that claims the son of astronaut Virgil Grissom accuses NASA of murdering his father:
www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

That link seems to have disappeared, try this:
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/astronaut_murdered.htm

NASA cannot let an honest person become an astronaut. The only people they allow to be astronauts are people with psychotic obsessions to become astronauts. These mentally ill people will keep the secrets because they desperately want to be an astronaut.



In other words, the astronauts are lunatics. This is why they exhibit so much psychotic behavior.

Last edited by OTPTT; May 7th, 2008 at 10:36 AM.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #5
melcur
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,216
Default

Great Post OTPTT, I'm sure they'll throw it into Nutzpah now.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #6
Steve B
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cali
Posts: 6,907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by melcur View Post
Those scientists were right, there is no way to avoid the massive doses of radiation one would receive unless they were behind a thick wall of lead, which of course was not aboard any of the Apollo spacecraft as its weight would have exceeded the ability of the Saturn Fives to lift it into space. All the math was done years and years ago, the only people still embracing the moon landing hoax are those that cannot admit that they've been effectively played the sucker.
Geeze, this is about the dumbest fuckin thing I have read on VNN in months. The Van Allen radiation belts don't give off "massive doses of radiation". If they did the high orbit communications satellites that operate in the outer regions would have their electronics fried right out of them within a month.

If you were really serious about looking into the Van Allen belts and the effects of radiation you would ask yourself a couple of simple questions.

1) What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?

2) How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?

3) What would be the likely health effects?

I recommend you look into the answers. You'll find that NASA engineers easily overcame the problem of the Van Allen belts....that is if you can tear yourself away from producing idiotic threads and polls about Bill White, dummy.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #7
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,118
George Witzgall
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by melcur View Post
Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? NASA is fudging data to make it appear as though it's getting warmer, when in fact it is cooling down

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05..._thermometers/

Get back to the jews and queers, moron.
__________________
I understand and do not understand.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #8
Karen Z.
VNNr since '05
 
Karen Z.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: africo
Posts: 1,956
Karen Z.
Default

I watched the 'four hour movie' or whatever, that was claiming to prove the astronauts never landed.. and I didn't see one item of 'proof' that convinced me... Unlike films I watch disproving 9-11, much of which convinces me completely.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #9
William Herring
Junior Member
 
William Herring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fargo, ND
Posts: 156
William Herring
Default

This is a subject that has long interested me. On the one hand, I would not put any amount of deception or treachery past our government. So if the moon landing was in fact a hoax, it would not surprize me.

However after thinking on this for a number of years, I think that a conspiracy so large and involving so many people would be nearly impossible to maintain. Its kind of a hard call. I did not see the documentary mentioned here, so it would be unfair of me to make immediate judgement without looking at all the evidence myself, but it is a very intriguing subject nonetheless.

If in fact all of these 'missions" to the moon and most recently to Mars are in fact a big pile of horseshit, I am sure all those hundreds of billions of dollars earmarked for the space program found it's way into the pockets of Israel in some way. Who knows?
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #10
Ron Doggett
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,732
Ron Doggett
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve B View Post
Geeze, this is about the dumbest fuckin thing I have read on VNN in months. The Van Allen radiation belts don't give off "massive doses of radiation". If they did the high orbit communications satellites that operate in the outer regions would have their electronics fried right out of them within a month.

If you were really serious about looking into the Van Allen belts and the effects of radiation you would ask yourself a couple of simple questions.

1) What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?

2) How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?

3) What would be the likely health effects?

I recommend you look into the answers. You'll find that NASA engineers easily overcame the problem of the Van Allen belts....that is if you can tear yourself away from producing idiotic threads and polls about Bill White, dummy.
Well said Steve.
The only ones I've heard question the moon landing up until I saw it on VNN a month ago were niggers.
This great achievement of our race is not in question.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #11
RebelWithACause
¡Confíeme en!
 
RebelWithACause's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,121
RebelWithACause
Default

Wow.

To put it in terms that folks can understand (since I have said it before in a few different ways,):

If you don't believe that we landed on the moon, you are an incredible fucking idiot.

Sorry, folks...but -damn.- Stop tilting at this particular windmill. I don't have a problem with people idealizing certain social and political efforts of the 30s and 40s....but stop using high school science books from the same era for fuck's sake.

__________________
James "Yankee Jim" Leshkevich 1955-2008
Email - clayton.jennings14@gmail.com
Save White People!!!
All The News That's Fit To Print
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #12
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

How do you all explain the apparent change of positions at NASA regarding the ability of the astronauts to see stars in space? For decades they say they can't see them for the lack of atmosphere and now they say that they can see them. Now they say that where there is no atmosphere that even with the sun shining one could see a heaven full of stars.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #13
elbwgreez
Senior Member
 
elbwgreez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,437
elbwgreez
Default

Regarding climate change, there is no realistic way to control it globally and in fact it might be very dangerous for us to interfere with nature. We know that in the past it has been much hotter than now and much cooler. We also know that the inevitable fate of Earth is extremely cold as the Sun eventually dies out. Adding to that, there is not much data that implies that a hotter Earth is worse than a colder ice age Earth.

It is obvious that the danger is not climate change, but an overinflated human population. Much of this population will face extinction because it is not fit to adapt to new conditions, whether climate or otherwise. In my view there's a distinct possibility that one half of the world will eventually have to eat the other half.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #14
melcur
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OTPTT View Post
How do you all explain the apparent change of positions at NASA regarding the ability of the astronauts to see stars in space? For decades they say they can't see them for the lack of atmosphere and now they say that they can see them. Now they say that where there is no atmosphere that even with the sun shining one could see a heaven full of stars.
On the Path to Truth,

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is NOT ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."

Cast not pearls before swine.
 
Old May 7th, 2008 #15
melcur
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elbwgreez View Post
Regarding climate change, there is no realistic way to control it globally and in fact it might be very dangerous for us to interfere with nature. We know that in the past it has been much hotter than now and much cooler. We also know that the inevitable fate of Earth is extremely cold as the Sun eventually dies out. Adding to that, there is not much data that implies that a hotter Earth is worse than a colder ice age Earth.

It is obvious that the danger is not climate change, but an overinflated human population. Much of this population will face extinction because it is not fit to adapt to new conditions, whether climate or otherwise. In my view there's a distinct possibility that one half of the world will eventually have to eat the other half.
Read the Report from Iron Mountain and you'll never again believe the rhetoric related to pollution, global warming, or aliens and UFOs.
 
Old June 30th, 2009 #16
Davidasmith
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Eric Hufschmid iis a shill or Jew.
He claims that 99.5% of "truthseekers" are "Zionist" agents.
He also claims that Ernst Zundel, Frederich Toben and David Irving are Zionist agents.
His sister is married to Rupert Murdoch's brother.
For more information exposing these dirty jew/shill/pig named Hufschmid go to
EricHufschmidExposed
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:19 AM.
Page generated in 0.14182 seconds.

VNN on Twitter