Ahh... I'm glad your all trying to tell me about the Sea, because you are actually treading into my territory. I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years. In fact I have been dealing with fish since I was 7, so you can really say that I am the expert in the field and not you (for once).

I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered. I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?

STS60 said 'Taking the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration away would do nothing at all to improve life on Earth'.

I take great exception to this stance. With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now. We cannot even cure the common cold and yet think that we could conquer other worlds?

Heres another STS60 quote: 'applying space technology to rural health care for Native Americans'.

I wonder how Native Americans caught these diseases? perhaps it was the invaders who brought the diseases when they took over America for themselves?

You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself and takes whatever it wants. I don't believe in this at all. How many years will it be before the animals that are around today are extinct? and all in the name of technology and advancement? I dont think so!

If our governments really cared about us and the environment they would have had solar cars and household equipment years ago. There they are telling us all about CFCs and green house gases and yet they are the ones exploding the nuclear bombs!

Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels? We'll its a fact, but I guess the government would rather rake in the revenue on car fuels (72.3% tax here in the UK where they made £23.3bn in 2000/1).

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!

So could all the money spent on advertising, football, Formula 1, high rise office buildings, holidays, drugs, pizza hut, pets, McDonalds, movies, pop stars, the internet phone bills, prostitution, paint-ball games, ice-cream, betting, etc, etc. Why not pick on one of those things to raise money, instead of Space Exploration?

I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.

Okay. What's your point? Should we stop all funding for space research and divert it instead to studying the ocean floor so that someone who objects to that boondoggle will have a chance to complain?

It's nice that you have firmly fixed in your mind a set of priorities for the expenditure of funds for exploration, but it's always going to be just a matter of opinion.

I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?

Extracts from snake and other venoms are used to synthesize neurological compounds. And the antivenom for snakebites is derived from the venom. But the knowledge to use those natural substances came from scientific research and development undertaken with public funding. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean we "naturally" know all its potential applications.

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!

No. Your concept of public finance is thoroughly naive. As a matter of fact, much more money than was spent on the entire Apollo project is expended every year in the United States on social and welfare entitlement programs. During the Apollo ramp-up in the 1960s the typical entitlements budget for a a single year exceeded $70 billion -- three to four times the entire multi-year project budget for Apollo. Your implication that social programs are invariably the best way to spend public funds is not shared by those who are asked to fund them.

This is quickly degenerating into a social and political debate. If you believe the Apollo program and continued funding of space exploration is a waste of money, then you're welcome to that belief. I happen to think otherwise, but that's my belief.

The question is whether you and Mr. Gant can support your accusation that Apollo was falsified. So far you can't, and it's fairly clear where your allegations come from. You've simply decided to resent NASA, full stop.

<blockquote>CD: I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years.</blockquote>
Interesting spelling of Ichthyologist.
<blockquote>CD: I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.</blockquote>
What you actually said was:
<blockquote>We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!</blockquote>
Now, what is it exactly that you're saying? That we haven't been to the deepest known point in our oceans? Well, we have. To say that any deeper ocean floors haven't been discovered is meaningless. If they haven't been discovered, you don't know them to exist.
<blockquote>CD: With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now.</blockquote>
If you are indeed sure, you won't have any trouble supporting this with fact. Otherwise, it's just a bucket of "what-ifs."
<blockquote>CD: You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself...</blockquote>
Your as-yet-unsubstantiated allegations are most assuredly cocksure.
<blockquote>CD: A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!</blockquote>
What makes you so sure it would have been spent thusly if not on the space program? You have no assurance of such.

[formatting]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-06-26 18:50 ]</font>

Nice to see you back CD.

I can appreciate how you would like to change the subject to other things, but I must insist that you address once and for all the Lunar Rover footage on your site.

To help, here is a diagram of the rover:







As you can plainly see, the Color Television Camera (which captured the live video) is at the front of the rover, next to the hi-gain antenna. Which just so happens to be what is in the field of view of your footage, which, of course, was shot with the 16mm movie camera.

Obviously, the implication that this was a live feed shot by the television camera is completely incorrect, and should be taken down from your site. In all honesty, this isn't a big deal, but your failure to correct such a piddling little error invalidates everything else you have to say. After all, if you can't admit you are wrong about that, you'll NEVER admit you are wrong about anything.

Now do the right thing Dave.

Cosmic Dave said (in part): "Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels?"

So does your car run on water, Dave?

Why not look at this problem from the point of view of a company. Someone develops a system to run cars on water. BP hears about it and decides to investigate. What's going to happen?

BP will buy out the invention and suppress it. Right?

Wrong.

They'll look at the invention and compare it to their own product. If it turns out to be more profitable to market the new fuel, they'll sell it, and make lots of money. If it turns out to be less profitable to market the new fuel, they'll continue to sell petrol. If it's profitable, why suppress it? And if it's not profitable, why spend money suppressing it when the market will do the job anyway?

And don't forget, oil companies are spending money on researching alternate fuels. It's probably not because they feel the call of nature, but the call of potential huge profits if they make the next big breakthrough.

cosmicdave, was there supposed to be a lunar hoax point anywhere in your last post? How about we see if we can pin you down on one single issue for a change, OK? Why don't you answer to Tomblvd's issue with the LRV before he puts his fist through his monitor over there?
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

(fixed bad tttttyping)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-26 21:23 ]</font>

I'm on my laptop, it's easier just to toss the whole thing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I'd like to add that I'm doing this as a follow up for Johnno, who has been asking the same question of CD for over a year. And for over a year CD has been avoiding the issue.

BTW, has anyone heard from Johnno? He have exams or something?

WOW ! The first laptop in earth orbit ! Wouldn´t that be something ?! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

"Is that a meteor ? No, it´s just Tomblvd´s laptop reentering the atmosphere ...."

At http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/vie...908&forum=12&1

... Johnno said that on Monday, June 17, he´d begin a 10 day long vacation in Sweden and Finland (he´s from Norway, I think).

Lemme see if I can remember this correctly.

Johnno was born in Finland. He grew up in Sweden and was in the Swedish Air Force (?). And he now lives in Norway.

I think that's what he said previously.

Although I question his living in Norway. He didn't know who Knute Rockne was!!!!!

I guess we'll find out when he gets back.

And BTW, anybody else notice Cd's deafening silence all of the sudden?

I've noticed he tends to go silent for long stretches after a particularly hard thumping. You know what they say about bad pennies, though.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Others have beat me to it, but I'll take a whack at it anyway...

Ahh... I'm glad your all trying to tell me about the Sea, because you are actually treading into my territory. I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years. In fact I have been dealing with fish since I was 7, so you can really say that I am the expert in the field and not you (for once).
I assume you mean "icthyologist" or "ichthyologist" (I've seen both spellings). OK, fair enough; my fish expertise is limited to broiling, grilling, or frying.

By the way, please explain to me what helps a coelacanth function at both great depths and near the surface. Thanks!

I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered. I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?
I'll pass, as I am not particularly familiar with either. But I see others have some answers.

STS60 said 'Taking the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration away would do nothing at all to improve life on Earth'.

I take great exception to this stance. With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now. We cannot even cure the common cold and yet think that we could conquer other worlds?
This idea is flawed on several counts:
1. As we have tried to explain to you, canceling money from even one project doesn't mean it goes to some worthwhile cause.
1a. Do you think NASA's budget is completely spent on space exploration?
1b. Of the part that is spent on space exploration, which, if any, qualifies as "useful" to you? Suborbital flights only? Earth observers? Solar observers?
2. The amount of money in the space program is rather insignifcant compared to such whoppers as defense and entitlement programs, and indeed is a very minor part of the U.S. budget. Also, are *you* sending all your "nonessential" dollars to cancer researchers?
3. Nobody yet thinks we can "conquer" another planet. Explore, perhaps even ultimately exploit, but conquer? That's in the SF realm.
4. Cancer and the common cold are hard problems to solve, and we've been working on them for decades. Lots of government and private money is already spent on these problems. Do you think throwing more money at these problems would automatically get them done right away?
5. The fact that you are sure does not make it so; this is a statement of belief, not of fact. It is not an expert opinion, either.

Do you understand the differences among these?
Examples: (1) I say we could wipe out the common cold in a year if everybody wore gloves and masks and wiped everything with alcohol. That is a statement of belief. I don't know much about the subject, and I could be totally wrong. (Just a hypothetical, I'm not really saying that.) (2) I say that the Apollo computer could have done the job of navigating to the Moon and back. That is an expert opinion; I have written flight code for spacecraft, though not this particular kind of spacecraft. (3) I say an object on a translunar trajectory appears quite different from one in low Earth orbit. This is a statement of fact; it's simple physics; denying it is like denying that aerodynamic lift holds airplanes up.

Heres another STS60 quote: 'applying space technology to rural health care for Native Americans'.

I wonder how Native Americans caught these diseases? perhaps it was the invaders who brought the diseases when they took over America for themselves?
What exactly has this to do with anything? Do you deny that this program benefitted these people because somebody carried diseases over centuries ago? Do you have a point, or are you just popping smoke and attempting to retreat from your claims that space exploration has had no benefits?

You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself and takes whatever it wants. I don't believe in this at all. How many years will it be before the animals that are around today are extinct? and all in the name of technology and advancement? I dont think so!
Dave, I think this is more smokescreen. I, too, am concerned about environmental destruction, biodiversity degradation, and the like. But what exactly has this to do with your claims that (a) Apollo was a hoax, or (b) the space program has not benefitted us?

BTW, if you're ever on the Space Coast, be sure to visit the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. It's the one that has the launch towers rising from it.

If our governments really cared about us and the environment they would have had solar cars and household equipment years ago. There they are telling us all about CFCs and green house gases and yet they are the ones exploding the nuclear bombs!
*Sigh*
1. Nuclear bombs have nothing to do with CFCs and greenhouse gases.
2. The government spends some on solar research. What do you think has driven the advancement of solar cells to this point? Primarily space exploration.
3. The government does research, but it's up to private enterprise to bring the products to market. The sign that there's no commercially -available solar car says something about how hard it is to do in real life. And also how addicted people are to cheap and powerful internal-combustion engines, unfortunately. But the government doesn't just turn the tap and pour out solar cars.

Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels? We'll its a fact, but I guess the government would rather rake in the revenue on car fuels (72.3% tax here in the UK where they made £23.3bn in 2000/1).
No, it is not a fact that any engine runs on water, if you mean it "burns" water. That's an urban legend. Wishing it were so doesn't make it true. Seeing it in a movie doesn't make it true.

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!
Must... restrain... from posting... obvious answer... arrrrgggh! (wrestles self from keyboard, and recovers)

Yes, but someone who knows even a little bit about the budget, and pays any attention to the scope of homelessness, drugs, and hunger, would know that such a statement is a bizarre distortion of reality.

At this point, I must join in asking you, again, to defend your assertions that Apollo was a hoax, and that space exploration is a complete waste of money, with some sort of quantitative arguments grounded in facts.

BTW, cosmicdave, you do not appear to have retracted any of your incorrect claims on your web site. From the false assertion that Bill Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne, to the claim that the film camera footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film camera footage, to the claims that the Van Allen belts would have killed the Apollo crews, to the bit about the AGC not being able to navigate the spacecraft... It's all still there.

Are you simply backlogged in your web site updates? It's just that leaving all that incorrect information on your site after it has been thoroughly explained to you damages your credibility. My $0.02.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-26 22:56 ]</font>

And I stand by my belief you have no idea what you are talking about.

What deepest ocean floors haven't been discovered? We've explored them and mapped all ot them by, ahem, SPACE SATTELITE, and have even visted the deepest part of the sea. What exactly ARE you trying to say??? You, with your vast experience, should know that we've gotten TONS of useful information about the ocean from space, lol.

Your original quote was

Remarkable statement for someone who claims to know so much about oceanography...http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/s...-t/trste-b.htm
I've been studying oceanography off and on since I was about seven too... big deal. I've known about the Treiste for some 30 years now... What is your excuse?

Oh, btw, we are coming really close to curing some rhinoviruses, which, btw, cause some of the common colds, dave... http://www.discover.com/feb_99/coldwar.html Trying to blame a lack of the cure on the common cold on the space program is childish and immature.

And, once again, your foot goes into your mouth...

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-27 03:06 ]</font>

Too bad you can't spell it. Oh, wait, "ich-theoligist." Are you an expert in fish religions?

Maybe you should expand on this. The Trieste descended to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean yet known; is there another, deeper spot we haven't discovered?

A great deal of research - certainly comparable to the amount done on space - has been conducted on the oceans depths. You need to clarify your claim.

Most of them are for tourists. But, you meant...

The venom is used to manufacture the antivenom. Tiny amounts of snake venom are injected into horses over a long period of time. The amounts are so small that the horse is not affected except that its metabolism produces antibodies to counteract the foreign substance in its system. After some 10-12 months blood is removed from the horse and the plasma is extracted. This plasma contains the antibodies which, when injected into a snake bite victim, will neutralize snake venom.

You implied that the venom itself was used directly to counteract a snake bite.

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-27 11:08 ]</font>

Col. Corso's accuracy can be judged by his claims to have been involved with the invasion of Italy in 1942. He either got the wrong year or the wrong continent.
Or is there another secret, covert, hoax cover-up by the US government that the Colonel is merely hinting about?

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

For further information on Corso, one may also read a certain Mr. Klass´s loving review of Corso´s book "The Day After Roswell":

http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-49.html

As Klass puts it:

""The Day After Roswell," by former Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso (USA, Ret.), (.........), is the most factually flawed and self-contradictory book on the subject ever published"

CD,

Please answers Tomblvd question/post.

A funny story goes with the rover camera thing. My 6 1/2 year son was watching the some of the LRV footage and asked asked me how the camera could be in the picture if it was taking the picture. I just showed him a LRV diagram, similar to the one Tomblvd posted and his response was, so one camera took a picture of the other.

How hard is that to understand.

Ictheologist is the correct spelling... it can be spelt both ways... check out

http://www.teachnet.com/how-to/manage/062198.html

or

http://www.drawrm.com/nail.htm

or

http://www.psd.k12.co.us/district/st...nimalskdgn.htm

or

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin...001/08/2/32418

John Witts said:
'So could all the money spent on advertising, football, Formula 1, high rise office buildings, holidays, drugs, pizza hut, pets, McDonalds, movies, pop stars, the internet phone bills, prostitution, paint-ball games, ice-cream, betting, etc, etc. Why not pick on one of those things to raise money, instead of Space Exploration?'

But the fundamental difference is that all of your examples above ARE paid by the people using them... If you want to go on holiday or go to a formula 1 race or buy ice-cream you pay your own way, you dont expect others to foot the bill, as is the case with NASA.

Rift posted this qoute: 'In October 1959, after being fitted with a stronger pressure sphere, Trieste was transported to the mid-Pacific to participate in Project "Nekton", in which she conducted a series of very deep dives in the Marianas Trench. On 23 January 1960, she reached a record depth of 35,800 feet in the Challenger Deep, off Guam, the deepest point in any of the World's oceans.'

Did anyone notice that it says 'She reached a record depth of 35,800 feet', where does it say that it rested on the bottom??? That is simply the deepest depth so far achieved. The actual bottom of the trench is 11,033 m (36,198 ft).

I could also say that many thousands of miles of rain forests have not been investigated, in fact new species are being found every day. I really dont think that were going to find any cures for diseases whilst travelling in space - in fact wasn't a very bad epidemic of flu a few years ago alleged to have come from space?

Oh and STS60... nice try to catch me out...
Coelacanths rarely swim at depths of less than 200 m (650 ft). In fact most of them live at more than 600 m (2,000 ft) below the water's surface.

Concerning cures for cancer.... I have heard of several - one being the dust taken from pure gold (even talked about by the ancient egyptians and annunaki). Any one of you can do an internet search and find a cure which has worked! All it needs is a little government financial backing to get the cure out into the public domain...

Of course we have to remember that the health service, whether it be here in England, the US or anywhere else for that matter is big business. Do you think the government would really like us all to be 100% healthy and living to a ripe old age where most would have to live off the state?

The UK health service already cannot fit people into our hospitals and its not unusual for people to be stuck onto waiting lists for upto 2 years who are suffering from cancer or waiting for hip replacement operations.