Horley CTFC Saint

My guess is High Net Worth Risk Manager

I'd prefer Appy

Typical NASA publicity seeking - this is about getting funding. Don't hold your breath on seeing Mr Spock just yet

Thankyou! Lets start worrying if Jos or Maya get injured and look to strengthen in the meantime

Try M27 - A27 - A3M - A3 - M25 - M23 route

Morgan awesome today - expect a bid from Arse :/

Chanrai for me

In fairness the Crawley pitch is a cabbage patch Fratton was a bowling green in comparison

It was and I was supporting Crawley - great result though! About 500 Crawley fans

I knew the youngster would come good - contrats Tel

In the old days when I use dto collect stamps I steamed them off with a kettle - could you not do this with the Poopey stamp?

Which is aptly enough when he ceases to be our calendar boy.......

You've done you're homework! The first pitch manouvre was programmed for 10 seconds after lift off so yes I'd say thats exactly the effect you're seeing here. Allegedly, and I've not verified any of this Apollo 17 was the only lift off filmed using a camera panning up - it was apparently controlled from Mission Control with the signal to move sent remotely prior to lift off so that the time gap in the signal leaving Earth and reaching the camera would take effect at the appropriate time - if true I'd guess there's a bit of luck involved in it but given that they didn't have to worry about weather conditions and the LEM would have been on a specific trajectory it seems quite possible! http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000117.html

Whilst on the face of it assuming the math is right (I can have it checked for you if you want) this is cast iron proof - I always find these types of comparison a bit dodgy. My reasoning is that without a 3D perspective and particularly with Moon pictures its very difficult to see whether the ground is flat rising and dropping away - there is little real evidence to tell, and certainly looking at the horizon can be misleading. So I prefer something like this link (one I posted before). To my mind this is much stronger evidence of the Moon landings. You just need to compare this with Earth rocket launches which are totally different as the rocket builds up sufficient thrust. There is no flame in this Moon launch sequence which is strongly suggestive that it was filmed in a vacuum or near vacuum. I guess the conspiracy theorists will be able to point to wires and the shadow of a winch somewhere but for me this is more of a clincher than the gravity test video. What I would say is why do a test like that on video for all to see if it risked ruining a good hoax and bringing down the wrath of the Spanish Inquis.....oh that was Galileo sorry.....if it risked exposing the whole thing?!

So it is - how exciting

For me a degree in Astrophysics might be a good start and a rigorous approach to proving his theories rather than vague suggestions like the beard looks like 72 hours growth (I guess beards grow faster in space or Australia - it would certainly take me longer to grow a beard like the one in the video). Quite frankly his commentaries appear to try to specifically mislead, there's no discerning critical analysis and as far as I can see very little substance - and thats not a character assassination just my own critical assessment of the hour or so I have wasted of my life watching the videos of Jarrah White posted on this thread. Buctootim - thats genuinely interesting comment on JW I hadn't found any of that - can you give us a link for the benefit of others interested in a bit of background to friend Jarrah?

I'm afraid you have far from covered most of the material I have mentioned in other parts of this thread - check it out if you don't believe me

Morzine in February - hope there's some snow!

Chortle - Are you shooting the messenger? You are aren't you? I just stated the facts (with the one exception of the 1901 FA Cup which was to make a point) - take a look at the Urban Dictionary, take a look at Jarrah White and his comments about such things as Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger disaster, his allusions to James Bond and his approach to misleading the reader. I suspect you aren't taking too much notice of my posts because you know that what I am saying is the truth and and sometimes the truth hurts - rigour Paps rigour.

Okay its really time I pointed out something to everyone on here regarding this earlier post of mine. When I wrote it I highlighted the 1901 FA Cup Final because I wanted to see the degree of rigour that posters were using when responding to posts on this thread and I think you've all proved a point to me at least. Not a single query as to the date - 1901? Not even from CB Fry This really does show how easy it is to misrepresent the facts - people are all to readily prepared to take things on face value - I had expected Pap at least to come back with a correction but no nothing, not a sausage, bu88er all - disappointing really as I had thought that he would naturally want to check the veracity of the statements! This is basically how the conspiracists work - no need to tell us the facts when they can misrepresent and obfuscate to then build tenuous fantasies around the actual facts - there's been a whole load of these charletans over the years and they will continue to make money out of the credulity of the general public because really it ain't gonna change.

Really why - the scientific and astronomical community don't see it as a priority issue and why should they - the whole conspiracy thing bearing warrants a mention for most of them? Its a waste of valuable booked time on any scope capable of doing what you want. Suggest if you really want someone to point the scope in the right direction you try and persuade a serious astronomer or astrophysicist to use some of his valuable booked scope time to do so - good luck with that!!

This thread appears to have been hijacked by the popinjays of forum humour which is a shame because I think that it’s important that these (what I consider) preposterous conspiracy theories are not left to fester unchallenged. So with that in mind..... Papsmeister – you appear to accept that the radiation issue is not unsurmountable. You also seem to have accepted that Jodrell Bank did track Apollo 11 to the Moon, so I am having a little difficulty understanding why you consider the Moon landings so unlikely. Okay onto the video ‘evidence’ I’ve also taken a look at the JW video you’ve posted – firstly the one spot appears to be more likely something insider the command module rather than external (and in the unlikely event that it was external my money would be on the them having just jettisoned the LEM - academic though as its not external). To be honest to be visible from outside with the lights on it would have to be considerably brighter than the moon – try opening your curtains/blinds sometime after dark but with the lights on and tell me what you can see outside. As for the blue light through the window yes that does look external and I would suggest for the reasons mentioned above would need to be pretty bright so it would likely be Earth, the Sun or both – what is not clear is when the video was taken as JW has not told us he has just made an enormous leap in the dark to suggest it was about 72 hours in with no apparent rigour as to how he arrived at this conclusion other than the astronauts look beardy. I would find it more interesting if you could match the comments about not being able see the Sun and the Moon with the video shown – can you? No thought not QED Oh and there were 5 portals and they’re all on the side unless Airfix have been lying all these years! Worth bearing in mind that the inner panes were Aluminosilicate whilst all were treated with optical coatings with the aim of cutting our infra red and ultra violent – any idea as to what effect that may have had on them? I’ve already stated that I’m impressed with the credibility of the main protagonists so here are some CVs of the main ones associated with Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory - there are load of ‘em but I guess the most famous are: Bill Kaysing http://billkaysing.com/biography.php This is a tribute site but even in light of its obvious bias gives you a flavour of the guy - technically unqualified but with good links to JPL Bart Sibrel http://www.sibrel.com/sibrel/ Not a lot here to suggest that he has any technical knowledge of cosmology or space flight at all Also for anyone interested in CVs for the others take a look at Wikipedia where there are a number of other potted histories for other theorists some more credible than others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories Jarrah White – nothing ‘cept an interesting definition in Urban Dictionary, an apparent belief that Christa McAuliffe was murdered. And finally especially for Halo Sticksman a few religious scientists: Sir Robert Boyd – a pioneer in British space science Richard Smalley – Nobel Laureate in chemistry Allan Sandage – astronomer Charles Hard Townes – Nobel Prize physics Freeman Dyson – Lorentz and Max Plank medals winner John T Houghton – Gold Medal from RAS John D Barrow – cosmologist There are many many more the two aren’t mutually exclusive!

As you appear to accept that the Apollo missions orbited the Moon given the radio astromical records (your comment re: Jodrell Bank) then this whole matter seems academic. Why lie about a blue light and did they even say what was causing it? But for the sake of good order take a look at the Moon in the night sky next time it is full and see how much light it gives off then consider what it would be like 4 times over without the diffusion of light you get in Earth's atmosphere. Surely its not a giant leap (can you see what I did there), if you do accept that they went to the Moon, that they actually landed there - 9 dry runs to the Moon without landing?! Even for a good hoax that seems a bit excessive. I not aware of one established person from the scientific community that is a conspiracist - they mostly seem to be journos and fantascists like Jarrah White - so look at the credentials for these people?

The Moon is approximately a quarter the size of Earth - enough said really. Was the Sun behind the Moon or the Earth and where are the windows are on the command module? These are the things you need to be asking yourself You never commented on the article about Jodrell Bank which I would have hoped would have set your mind at rest that Apollo did happen the way it is generally understood to have happened. Also is it just coincidence that both your moniker and that of Jarrah White are suggestive that your taking the general populace for a bunch of gullible prannets or is there a conspiracy here to investigate?

Why bother we already know the answer is 42 I recommend loads Jimpson Weed and Peyote and an early night