Internet Hoaxes

(For General Discussion)

Moderators: Jason, Toothy, Tonyblack

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:31 pm

Look up the thread a bit Dotsie - prepare to be bored though..... :P
Some interesting YouTubes though :D

Pooh - :lol: sorry but Velcro was invented before NASA and the space programme began -

Wiki Quote - The hook-loop fastener was invented in 1948 by Swiss engineer, George de Mestral who lived in Commugny, Switzerland. The idea came to him one day after returning from a hunting trip with his dog in the Alps. He took a close look at the burrs (seeds) of burdock that kept sticking to his clothes and his dog's fur. He examined them under a microscope, and noted their hundreds of "hooks" that caught on anything with a loop, such as clothing, animal fur, or hair.

The same article however does mention that - Velcro made of Teflon loops, polyester hooks, and glass backing is used on space shuttles. - so a case of the Natural World contributing to High Science.

Nothing's really that original so it seems the post-Modernists have it mostly right?!? :twisted:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby poohbcarrot » Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:37 pm

Jan, not sure about your Pot Noodles comment. :?: Can you give me a reference stating it was created because of the space race? :twisted:

Wiki says it was invented by a Japanese dude in 1977. :lol:
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:31 pm

Pooh - was more the concept of dried foods that could be hydrated in sealed vacuum pouches and then sucked in zero gravity?
So a line of NASA development that led to pot noodle type convenience foods :) I think they call PN 'ramen' in the States?

One thing that does fascinate me and, incidentally, also may be a significant factor in Bush saying that it will take another 20 years to get another person on the Moon - why are so many of the old-school style astronauts (including the Apollo/moon-landing ones) so strange when they come back to Earth?

They're all intelligent people, trained to the peak of mental as well as physical fitness so they can cope well with the strains of zero gravity and lack of normal social conditions and yet after they're retired they seem to go distinctly weird (not just the born again ones either)?

On a more pragmatic note...even now they still don't send women up much either, although they're just as well equipped to deal with all the less glam bits (lavatorial activity - infant and adult varieties - may well help women cope with the smelly factors rather better in fact, even though their physiology is less 'neat'... :twisted: ).
Aside from the 1st woman in space, Valentina Tereshkova at 28, it now seems to be over-30s women who are chosen to go up, so gender aspects are likely to the reason here, but it does seem very odd that women weren't 'out there' until the programme had graduated to space station/satellite launch missions and the need for spacesuits was no longer a prerequisite for longer stays in orbit, and even then women seem to able to space walk and do other classic astronaut stuff as well as males.

Perhaps it's as simple as NASA and the Soviet/European equivalent bodies aren't quite ready to study more earth-bound hetero activity in a zero-gravity environments (although I bet its been tried somewhere :twisted: )
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby poohbcarrot » Tue Mar 24, 2009 1:45 pm

When Buzz Aldrin, the second man to "walk on the moon", came back to earth he suffered depression and became an alcoholic. You'd almost think he was trying to hide something, wouldn't you? :lol:

BTW The Kent State shootings were in 1970, not as I said previously 1969 :oops:
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Dotsie » Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:16 pm

poohbcarrot wrote:When Buzz Aldrin, the second man to "walk on the moon", came back to earth he suffered depression and became an alcoholic. You'd almost think he was trying to hide something, wouldn't you? :lol:


You mean you don't think it would really mess with your mind, knowing you'd walked on the Moon? It might never happen again!

As to your previous post, I notice you removed it. Not scared are you? :wink: Luckily I copied it as follows:

poohbcarrot wrote:Politically the moon landing was very "convenient." (I won't mention any scientific bits like the Van Allen radiation belts,


Please do. Radiation is measured in the amount you are exposed to over a certain period of time. The astronauts weren’t exposed long enough to cause problems.

no lights on the moon etc).


Apart from the Sun, of course.

Was the president at the time trustworthy?

In 1969 there were riots against the Vietnam war in the US. Students were being killed at Kent State University for protesting. The US was on the verge of revolution. Suddenly BANG! We've walked on the moon! We're the best - protests cease.

It also fitted in with Kennedy's speech when he said by the end of the decade Americans will walk on the moon and screwed the Russians (who had always been ahead of the US in the Space Race until then)


I can’t really comment on the motivations for faking the Moon landings. I can only say how we know they weren’t faked.

The space shuttle never goes more than 400 miles (approx) above the earth's surface. If Apollo 13 was only that far above the Earth's surface, it could have experienced trouble and would have been believable.


I don’t understand this part – didn’t Apollo 13 get much further away than this when it got into trouble? Does that mean it wasn’t believable? And what does that have to do with the space shuttle?

Alledged "moonrock" could be from meteors that hit the earth or normal rock exposed to radiation.


”Normal” rock (ie from the Earth) is at the very most just under 4 billion years old, whereas the rocks brought back from the lunar highlands were 4.4 billion years old. As for the radiation, I don’t really know what you mean there – no radiation I can think of would turn 3.8 billion-year-old andesite into 4.4 billion-year-old anorthosite. As for meteorites, do you mean that loads of rocks that probably came from the Moon were pedalled as direct samples? Any geologist who knows one end of a basalt from the other is going to spot shocked grains (evidence of breaking away from the parent body), which weren’t evident in the samples brought back.

But I'm talking nonsense because our leaders never lie. There were loads of WMDs in Iraq, we could all have been vapourised within 45 minutes if we hadn't invaded and The General Belgrano WAS in the Exclusion Zone when it was sunk.


None of which has anything to do with the Moon landings, so I won’t comment. Feel free to add any more objections you may have overheard in the pub :D
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby Catch-up » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:05 pm

Love all the info Dotsie! :D
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6946
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby poohbcarrot » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:28 am

Dotsie

I voted 80% belief in the moon landing. The 20% doubt was based on the fact that it was too "politically convenient". Feel free to debunk any of the following;

In 1962 J F Kennedy promised by the end of the decade the US would have a man on the moon. In 1969 Kennedy was (and still is) regarded as one of the greatest US Presidents. Any President in 1969 who hadn't fulfilled Kennedy's promise would have committed political suicide.

The President at the time of the moon landing was Richard Nixon, a liar and a crook.

During the 60s, Russia was always ahead in the space race until the moon landing.

In the 60s the hippy culture, born out of anti-war protest, was a direct threat to the US establishment. Coupled with the fact that the US was losing in an unpopular war in Vietnam, the US establishment needed something big to restore its popularity and boost the morale of the country.

In the 60s it took only 7 years to put a man on the moon. Bush said recently it would take 20 years to "revisit" the moon. Why the big time difference?

You voted 0% in the Neocons being responsible for 9/11. If I put up 10 points about 9/11, will you (as a scientist) debunk them and/or explain them for me?
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Dotsie » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:40 pm

poohbcarrot wrote:Dotsie

I voted 80% belief in the moon landing. The 20% doubt was based on the fact that it was too "politically convenient". Feel free to debunk any of the following;

In 1962 J F Kennedy promised by the end of the decade the US would have a man on the moon. In 1969 Kennedy was (and still is) regarded as one of the greatest US Presidents. Any President in 1969 who hadn't fulfilled Kennedy's promise would have committed political suicide.

The President at the time of the moon landing was Richard Nixon, a liar and a crook.

During the 60s, Russia was always ahead in the space race until the moon landing.

In the 60s the hippy culture, born out of anti-war protest, was a direct threat to the US establishment. Coupled with the fact that the US was losing in an unpopular war in Vietnam, the US establishment needed something big to restore its popularity and boost the morale of the country.


As I said before, this is politics not science. It doesn't prove the landings didn't happen.

In the 60s it took only 7 years to put a man on the moon. Bush said recently it would take 20 years to "revisit" the moon. Why the big time difference?


Not being intimately familiar with the space program at the moment, I can only point out three things:
1. Whilst visiting the Moon doesn't have to be done to any particular timescale (planetary alignment etc), other projects do. So there might not be room in the engineers' diaries just now.
2. There wouldn't be any point in just going & doing the same things as before. The next trip may well be to look for water and/or install facilities for splitting water into oxygen & hydrogen (which is how we make rocket fuel here), for any future re-fuelling of trips to Mars (this is definitely on the cards for future Mars projects anyway).
3. For something to happen in 7 years time, George W. would have to start funding it now. Better for him to say 20 years & then it's someone else's problem.

You voted 0% in the Neocons being responsible for 9/11. If I put up 10 points about 9/11, will you (as a scientist) debunk them and/or explain them for me?


When you say "as a scientist", do you mean they are to do with science? If they are, I will have a try. My own 0% response was due to the fact that I have never come across any evidence for this, have never looked for any, & probably won't. So I have nothing to base a theory on. As a scientist :wink:
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby poohbcarrot » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:04 pm

These are spooky coincidences, are they not?

Stratesec (formerly Securicom) had security contracts with Dulles airport, United Airlines and the World Trade Centre.

On 9/11 one of the planes that hit the WTC was United Airlines and another took off from Dulles airport.

The CEO of Stratesec from 1999 - 2002 was Wirt D Walker III. This gentleman is related to George W Bush. From 1993 - 2000, one of the directors of Stratesec was none other than Marvin P Bush, George W's younger brother. :shock:

The Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been friends for years.
When 9/11 happened, some of the Bin Laden family were in the US checking out horses to buy. Even though the FBI wanted to interview the Bin Laden family as material witnesses, they were allowed to leave on September 21st :shock:

It just makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Debunk away, Dotsie. :lol:
Last edited by poohbcarrot on Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby poohbcarrot » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:15 pm

....and a scientific question for you.

If there was a fire that burned so hot it vaporized solid steel plane engines, what would happen to a human body in the same fire?
Image
"It's better to belong where you don't belong than not to belong where you used to belong,
remembering when you used to belong there"
-Sneebs
poohbcarrot
Member
 
Posts: 1557
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Japan

Postby Dotsie » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:48 pm

Aha, I suspect you know the answer to that one anyway. And I don't want to debunk all the other stuff, I'm happy to let you have any number of conspiracy theories (including hangars, grassy knolls, & Elvis etc), just as long as they don't include the Moon.

In fact, you may be interested to know that I share my birthday with the attack on Pearl Harbour, & my Mum's is the same as the WTC attacks. The years aren't the same, but STILL... it makes you wonder what Dotsie is hiding, no? :wink: :D
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby Catch-up » Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:10 pm

Regarding the moon landing... do you know how many people would have to be in on that? And in all this time no one has come forward and spoken about it? I just don't think that's possible. It completely goes against human nature. Two of the bigest obstacles in believing conspiracy theories are:

A) You're asking me to believe that the government was able to plan and orchestrate something unbelievably elaborate for usually very little gain.

B) You're asking me to believe that no one involved (and there would have to be a lot of people involved in almost any conspiracy) is blowing the whistle. Not possible!

I have to ask if you're absolutely sure of the validity of all of the political facts you've listed for both the moon and 9/11. And, even if they are correct, they're hardly conclusive. I totally respect your right to believe in conspiracy theories by the way! :wink: Just my 2 cents.

I think people have a real need to hold on to some of these things. For example, I really, really want to believe there's a plesiosaur living in Loch Ness. I know that it's an extremely unlikely idea and that all evidence points the other way. But somehow that doesn't stop me from wanting to to be true. :oops: :D
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6946
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Postby Dotsie » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:41 pm

As unlikely as it might be, it would be kind of cool to discover a dinosaur. Briefly. :lol:
What's up with this glass? Excuse me? Excuse me? This is my glass? I don't think so. My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!
User avatar
Dotsie
Member
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 11:07 am

Postby Jan Van Quirm » Wed Mar 25, 2009 6:50 pm

Dotsie wrote:
poohbcarrot wrote:no lights on the moon etc).


Apart from the Sun, of course.


Also reflected sunlight from the Earth - doing the same job as the Moon does for us? :lol:
Actually that would quite easily explain the backlighting 'problem' - the Sun casting the strong shadow and the weaker light reflecting off the Earth lighting up the shadow side of the Astronaut... :wink:

In fact the Earthlight would also be pretty strong since there's no atmospheric interference to speak of on the Moon and so no cloudy skies... :twisted:

As for the dichotomy between science and politics - are either that reliable? Science is as exact as it can be, given the level of knowledge in that particular field and politics is full of people potentially abusing or twisting power - or simply not knowing what's going on around them (whether that's on a 'need to know basis' or their own stupidity or both).

Catch-up's comment on the Kennedy and the Bush 'predictions' for Moon missions come from the same premise but from different directions...? So Kennedy's 7 yr assessment at the start of his 1st term shows his ambitions to go out on a real high at the end of his 2nd term. Bush is less sanguine about his prospects and has zero interest in ex-Terrafirma projects with 9/11 Afghanistan and Iraq on his plate so 20 years is playing safe and he'll not be 'blamed'.

Like I said earlier - if you need to cover up/turn attention away from something so badly, then why say you're going to go somewhere in the first place if you know you can't (Kennedy) and if you're in so much mire that you need a huge shovel that looks like a white knight (Nixon) why go to such efforts to fake something that's costing mega-bucks already?

As for science - did anybody really know what to expect with Moon dust/rock samples? They did/do know that both Earth and Moon get hit by meteorites all the time and, astronomically speaking, we're practically the same place so why should Moon rock be substantially different from Earth rock especially if it's come from metorites...?
I'm not a scientist but a good friend out in Western Australia is (a geologist) and he's a world authority on meteorites (the Nullabor gets hit very regularly) and has moon rock samples in his faculty museum - on display as moon rock.

He also has samples of rock and soil strata from Antarctica that proves there was a much bigger hole in the ozone layer an Ice Age or so ago and that the earth repeatedly warms and cools... But we already know there've been what - at least FIVE Ice Ages - so what's the big surprise? I think I put 100% for global warming - maybe this latest phase is a little premature but whoever mentioned Krakatoa was on the nose. We'd have had warming anyway and another Ice Age will come as a result - when it's about due give or take a century or even a millennium maybe.

As a species we're not as important as we think we are. :wink:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Jan Van Quirm
Member
 
Posts: 10617
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:07 pm
Location: Dunheved, Kernow

Postby Catch-up » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:14 pm

Jan Van Quirm wrote:
As for the dichotomy between science and politics - are either that reliable?


I think I feel very comfortable choosing science over politics for reliability. :wink:
User avatar
Catch-up
Member
 
Posts: 6946
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:19 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

PreviousNext

Return to The Broken Drum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests