Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:49 pm  

An old interview with Bob Lazar on the feasibility of the electro-gravitic drive. Whether you want to buy into the extra-terrestrial aspect is up to you but the technical information is pretty interesting.

An old interview with Bob Lazar on the feasibility of the electro-gravitic drive. Whether you want to buy into the extra-terrestrial aspect is up to you but the technical information is pretty interesting.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:14 pm  

It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the lunar rover. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g. The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach. This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time). I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat. Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures. And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer?

It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the lunar rover. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g. The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach. This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time). I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat. Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures. And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer?

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Jan 30, 2016 8:22 pm  

Mugwump wrote: It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the lunar rover. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g. The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach. Er, there IS no air. Kinda the point of being on the moon. As the video is of course genuine, you can see what the regolith of the Moon actually does when a buggy drives over it, because it is on this film. There is no basis for your claim other than rank amateur half-baked claims of what the regolith "should have done". How do you possibly know what the rgolith on the moon "should have done"? You don't know what its mass or composition is, you don't know the strength of the forces were applied to it, and the vid is of nowhere near enough resolution or frame rate to be able to see particles, all you see is the shape of the plumes which it makes. Mugwump wrote: This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time). It was very easy to shoot. The difficult part was getting to and landing on the Moon. The shooting part is set up the camera, point and shoot. Mugwump wrote: I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat. I get a sense that you have already predetermined your own answer ("all fake") and so your question is rhetorical. But, physics works on the Moon same as anywhere else. There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon, (a) radiation and (b) conduction. The radiation on the Moon is (i) directly from the Sun and (ii) from the Sun’s reflection off the ground. The trick with the spacesuits is that the design ensured that almost 90% of the Sun's heat radiation was reflected back by the suit, and so very little heat was transferred from outside in to the suit. The suit then was comprised of many layers, and these provided a very efficient insulating effect to damp the rate of transmission of heat either way. So on the astronaut's "cold" side, he would be emitting very little heat, on his "hot" side, he would be receiving very little heat, and the basics are as simple as that. A very reflective suit! Not rocket science, is it? And of course the performance of such a suit in a vacuum was easy to experiment with and test until the design was right, in preparations for the missions. The second way to transfer heat on the Moon is by conduction, i.e. boots on the ground. This wasn't an issue, first because the regolith doesn’t conduct heat well; secondly the astronauts’ boots were insulated, so very non-conductive. Finally, extra-vehicular activities were typically planned to commence around lunar dawn, so that the regolith didn't get the chance to heat up to its max anyway. Mugwump wrote: Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures. And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer? As you now know, the interior of the spacesuit did not experience violent temperatures due to the above. The cooling system therefore had to do much less than the extreme gymnastics you seem to imagine. However, your point about batteriesin extreme cold is completely bogus. For a start, the battery was not "outside"in space, it was in the astronauts backpack so insulated from space. For another, you for some reason assume that the battery if it was exposed to space would somehow always be in the cold. Surely, unless the astronaut stayed perfectly still for hours (which would rather defeat the point of an EVA), such an external battery would be heated pretty much as much as it would lose heat as it varied from light to shade? Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours, with oxygen stored at 1,020 pounds per square inch (7.0 MPa), 3.0 pounds (1.4 kg) of lithium hydroxide, 8.5 pounds (3.9 liters) of cooling water, and a 279 watt-hour battery. For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours by increasing oxygen to 1,430 pounds per square inch (9.9 MPa), lithium hydroxide to 3.12 pounds (1.42 kg), cooling water to 11.5 pounds (5.2 liters), and battery capacity to 390 watt-hours There's absolutely stacks of very detailed information about the suits, you can even go and see one for yourself, so i don't know why you would need to resort to such totally misinformed pseudo-science conclusions.

Mugwump wrote: It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the lunar rover. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g. The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach. Er, there IS no air. Kinda the point of being on the moon. As the video is of course genuine, you can see what the regolith of the Moon actually does when a buggy drives over it, because it is on this film. There is no basis for your claim other than rank amateur half-baked claims of what the regolith "should have done". How do you possibly know what the rgolith on the moon "should have done"? You don't know what its mass or composition is, you don't know the strength of the forces were applied to it, and the vid is of nowhere near enough resolution or frame rate to be able to see particles, all you see is the shape of the plumes which it makes. Mugwump wrote: This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time). It was very easy to shoot. The difficult part was getting to and landing on the Moon. The shooting part is set up the camera, point and shoot. Mugwump wrote: I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat. I get a sense that you have already predetermined your own answer ("all fake") and so your question is rhetorical. But, physics works on the Moon same as anywhere else. There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon, (a) radiation and (b) conduction. The radiation on the Moon is (i) directly from the Sun and (ii) from the Sun’s reflection off the ground. The trick with the spacesuits is that the design ensured that almost 90% of the Sun's heat radiation was reflected back by the suit, and so very little heat was transferred from outside in to the suit. The suit then was comprised of many layers, and these provided a very efficient insulating effect to damp the rate of transmission of heat either way. So on the astronaut's "cold" side, he would be emitting very little heat, on his "hot" side, he would be receiving very little heat, and the basics are as simple as that. A very reflective suit! Not rocket science, is it? And of course the performance of such a suit in a vacuum was easy to experiment with and test until the design was right, in preparations for the missions. The second way to transfer heat on the Moon is by conduction, i.e. boots on the ground. This wasn't an issue, first because the regolith doesn’t conduct heat well; secondly the astronauts’ boots were insulated, so very non-conductive. Finally, extra-vehicular activities were typically planned to commence around lunar dawn, so that the regolith didn't get the chance to heat up to its max anyway. Mugwump wrote: Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures. And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer? As you now know, the interior of the spacesuit did not experience violent temperatures due to the above. The cooling system therefore had to do much less than the extreme gymnastics you seem to imagine. However, your point about batteriesin extreme cold is completely bogus. For a start, the battery was not "outside"in space, it was in the astronauts backpack so insulated from space. For another, you for some reason assume that the battery if it was exposed to space would somehow always be in the cold. Surely, unless the astronaut stayed perfectly still for hours (which would rather defeat the point of an EVA), such an external battery would be heated pretty much as much as it would lose heat as it varied from light to shade? Lunar surface EVA times for the first four missions (Apollo 11 through 14) were limited to 4 hours, with oxygen stored at 1,020 pounds per square inch (7.0 MPa), 3.0 pounds (1.4 kg) of lithium hydroxide, 8.5 pounds (3.9 liters) of cooling water, and a 279 watt-hour battery. For the extended missions of Apollo 15 through 17, the EVA stay time was doubled to 8 hours by increasing oxygen to 1,430 pounds per square inch (9.9 MPa), lithium hydroxide to 3.12 pounds (1.42 kg), cooling water to 11.5 pounds (5.2 liters), and battery capacity to 390 watt-hours There's absolutely stacks of very detailed information about the suits, you can even go and see one for yourself, so i don't know why you would need to resort to such totally misinformed pseudo-science conclusions.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:18 pm  

I KNOW enough about the effects of low or zero gravity to understand that moondust (regardless of its composition) should not be pulled toward the lunar surface as though it were experiencing earth gravity. Which is PRECISELY what we see in all of NASA's lunar rover films.

Next you'll be telling me the astronauts somehow managed to control their bouncing across the surface to such an extent that they never managed to bound higher than one might have expected to see on the earth. Or did they load themselves down with six-hundred pounds of lead before they popped the hatch?

As for the suits - you are deluding yourself. For a start whatever reflective properties they possessed would have been shot to hell as the thin electrostatically charged dust began to adhere to the material. In many photographs they are literally caked in the stuff up to the midriff. The temperature would have continued to rise from the first minute. And with the lack of any air currents there would have been nowhere for that heat to go.

It's an even tougher sell for the lunar lander. Whilst parts of the ship were coated in reflective mylar - many other regions were little more than bare metal. Even if they cranked the air-conditioning up to maximum they had no way of dumping nearly twice the heat of a boiling kettle bearing down of them every second of every minute of every hour in direct sunlight.

You are far too invested in this myth to remain objective. The truth is no amount of evidence will ever convince you that NASA is dishonest. Quite why you should be so willing to believe the statements of a military division set up by people who openly lied about their involvement in the cold-blooded slaughter of millions of innocents during WWII escapes me. This is the very same organisation which Gus Grissom's son openly accused of MURDER after his father complained that the entire Apollo program was a shambles and even went so far as to call a press conference to record his disgust.

I guess it just goes to prove the old adage - fooling people is easy. Convincing people they've been fooled is not.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:54 pm  

“In 1995 or 1996 FOX did a special titled, “We Never Went To The Moon”. It was one of the highest rated shows in FOX history. Some of the material presented was not correct and it was very sensationalistic but it covered many of the main objections to the official story. James Oberg who is one of the top science writers in the world saw the ratings of the show and became incensed. He went to NASA and said, “I want you to open up your archives and I will write a book proving that we went to the moon without a shadow of a doubt”. The people at NASA rubbed their hands and said, “Great. Come on in”. They gave him a $20,000 advance and he began the project. I know James well and was following this story with interest. For five months I heard nothing and I was wondering what was happening when I read in the newspaper that James Oberg had quietly given back the $20,000 advance. Well, we never heard any more about it but later I discovered exactly what happened because it happened to me. In the early nineties I was working with Richard Hoagland and started asking NASA questions about the moon landings. Could I see the designs for the suits? Could I look at the type of air-conditioning they had? I was interested in what kind of battery could possibly power a heater/cooler which had to cope with over three-hundred degree fluctuations in temperature. At the time I really did believe that we went to the moon but I simply couldn’t get any traction out of NASA. They would never respond to my questions. They would never help me. I was planning to write a book and NASA was fully aware of this. Oberg asked the same questions and received exactly the same runaround until he became fed up with the whole affair and gave them their money back. "

"In 1996 Hoagland and I pitched several major Wall Street investors with the proposal to make a whole load of money out of filming an IMAX movie titled, “Return To The Moon”. Our plan was to privately launch a 3D camera which would orbit above the moon and take high-resolution stills and video of the lunar landing sites. It would be an IMAX feature which everyone felt we’d make billions out of. We’d budgeted a cost of $20million which we felt would be more than sufficient. In our last meeting we waited two hours to get the go-ahead for funding. We’d hired a very famous movie producer to run the project and everything was going forward. As part of the due-diligence they hired a guy who had worked extensively with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and his job was to make sure we could do what we said we could do i.e. build a reliable rocket which could launch without killing everyone etc. etc. Ironically this guy was a friend of mine who lived just a few miles down the road. When I called him to find out why the project had suddenly been delayed he said, “I’m sorry, Jay. I called up the head of NASA and when I told him about your proposal his words were, “You are not going to the moon, Frank. No one is going to the moon. If you launch your rocket and I don’t care if it’s launched out of India or China or the middle of the ocean we will BLOW IT OUT OF THE SKY and DO NOT EVER CALL ME AGAIN”.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:44 am  

In debates such as these defenders of the official narrative at some point triumphantly declare victory with nauseating arguments such as this:

Bear in mind that the person who wrote this claims to have a science-based Ph.D.

"Though I fear few conspiracists have a level of intelligence high enough to actually carry out this experiment, there is a way to empirically prove that man has been on the moon. Why?

Because the astronauts put a bunch of mother*&$^ing reflectors on the moon, that's why!

Here's how to shut up your conspiracist friend in five convenient steps:

1 - Grab a high-power laser and a light sensor

2 - Point the high-power laser at any of the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflectors:
coordinates degrees N degrees E
(on the moon -duh) (latitude ) (longitude)
Apollo 11 LRRR 0.67337 23.47293
Apollo 14 LRRR -3.64421 -17.47880
Apollo 15 LRRR 26.13333 3.62837

3 - Fire a densely-packed lightbeam at one of these coordinates (with a pulse frequency unique to it so your conspiracist friend cannot pretend it's just space noise).

4 - ????? a couple seconds (you know, because light travels at ~c=~300.000km/sec and the moon is at ~300.000km)

5 - measure light that has been mirrored back to your sensor.

6 - Profit by making your conspiracy theorist friend shut the hell up.

Science 1 - Fruitcakes 0"

Without using the Internet can anyone hazard a guess at the fatal flaw in the above reasoning? If not you are in good company because no less an intellect than Dr. Brian "D:REAM" Cox publicly swallowed this argument in a fifty minute episode on BBC2 without question.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:21 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

The clincher for me was reading Dave McGowan's book, [Inside-Canyon-Laurel, Weird Scenes Inside The CanyonThe presence of Lookout Mountain is the most obvious point but what really fascinated me were the countless references Kubrick made in The Shining to the goings on in Laurel Canyon. Chief among them would be none other than "The Overlook Hotel" which was used as part of the ultra-secret MKULTRA mind-control program.]

Dave McGowan was an excellent researcher. His passing was a real shame for the truth movement and a real slam dunk for the NWO. Considering Laurel Canyon is in Hollywood, the more information we have about what come out of there the better.

Roseanne Barr: “MK Ultra Rules In Hollywood”

It’s funny that ancient Druid ‘wizards’ and ‘magicians’ used to make their wands specific for casting spells from the Holly Wood tree. Maybe “Hollywood” is used to cast spells on the masses, because at the very least it can sure seem that way. Everything we do is so systematic, so robotic in nature. We go to school, get a job, have a family and chase materialistic gains only to find out that it is not what our soul truly desires. We are told what to wear, what’s popular, what to buy, what truth is and how life is through television. It keeps us occupied, ignorant and blind to what is really happening on our plane.

Roseanne’s public remark that the CIA’s MK Ultra program rules in Hollywood is an educated statement, and not just an opinion. It comes from her own experiences within the industry as well as an awareness of known facts about the CIA and their involvement in Hollywood -all of which also happen to be available to the public. It’s not hard to see how television and mass advertising can be used as mind control, basically shaping the perception of the individual, as well as displaying what each individual should “be” like, what type of life to chase and what it means to be successful. Given Roseanne’s statement, as well as the information we already have in the public domain, it’s safe to say that something fishy is going on in Hollywood. Ask yourself, are your wants really yours? Or have they been programmed into you since birth?

Not many people know this, but the CIA has an entire department dedicated to the entertainment industry. It’s run through the CIA’s Entertainment Industry Liaison Office which collaborates in a strictly advisory capacity with filmmakers. The CIA doesn’t just offer guidance to filmmakers, it even offers money. In 1950, the agency bought the rights to George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and then funded the 1954 British animated version of the film. Its involvement had long been rumoured, but only in the past decade have those rumours been substantiated. The link between Hollywood and the CIA isn’t something new, and Roseanne isn’t just blurting out information that has no backing behind it.

This list is weird, quite a creepy mixture actually. Jimi Hendrix lived there, Alice Cooper, David Carradine,Jerry Brown (linked to Jonestown), Boris Karloff (horror movie actor lived at both Laurel Canyon and The Dakota), Marilyn Manson, Kd Lang, Steve Martin (and all his King Tut Rosicrucian insider humor), Mia Farrow (me a pharoah), Keith Moon, Slash, Frances Farmer....plus a whole bunch more other celebrities who died young...

Here is a list of Laurel Canyon Residents: Past and Present

* Jensen Ackles, Supernatural, present * Elvis Cole, Fictional Detective, Present * Jennifer Aniston, early-mid 1990s.
* Christina Applegate, present * Mary Astor, Appian Way * Lex Barker (Alexander Crichlow Barker, Jr.), international Actor (Tarzan, German Karl May movies), Mulholland Drive, neighbour to Errol Flynn, end of 1940s. * Saul Bass, graphic designer
* Harry Bosch, present (fictional) * Clara Bow, 1920s, on Horseshoe Canyon and Lookout Mountain.
* David Blue 1980s,rented on Lookout Mountain Ave. * Victory (Vicki) Tischler Blue, 1980s - 2003,and 2006 [rented on Lookout Mountain] producer/director, bass player for the The Runaways. * Zach Braff, present on Lookout Mountain Ave.
* Peter Brocco 1940s to 1992 (died at 89 years old) stage, film and tv character actor, blacklisted in the 1950s. His home was on Laurel Canyon Blvd., just north of the Country Store. * Louise Brooks, 1927-28 * Jerry Brown, 1970s * Eric Burdon, 1970s
* David Byrne * Neve Campbell, 1996-2000 * Canned Heat, their house and rehearsal studio on Lookout Mountain Ave. Next to Joni Mitchell's burned to the ground in 1969. A photo of their charred amplifiers was used for Steppenwolf's album At Your Birthday Party'. * Leslie Caron, 1950s, lived on Laurel Canyon Boulevard, near the Country Store * Danny Carey, drummer for Tool, present * Adam Carolla, 1980s * David Carradine 1970s * Stephen Christian, present * George Clooney, present * Chuck Connors, 1950s, lived on Ridpath * Alice Cooper, 1971-1976 * David Crosby, 1960's* Richard Day, art director, lived on Oakstone Way, 1920-1940 * Pamela Des Barres * Henry Diltz, photographer, 1960s * Denny Doherty, 1960s, also lived in the Mary Astor house on Appian Way * Shannen Doherty 1980s, rented (her first time away from home) on Lookout Mountain Avenue * Micky Dolenz, 1960s * D.C. Douglas, actor, present* Marty Teboe, 1967, and once again early 1989 thru 1994
* Troy Donahue, early 1960s, lived on Ridpath* Rob Dyrdek, Pro Skateboarder, MTV2 star, present* Eliza Dushku, present
* Cass Elliot, 1960s off Woodrow Wilson* Geoff Emerick, present* Will Ferrell, present * Fabian, 1960s, lived on Ridpath
* Kim Fowley, 1970's* Errol Flynn, early to mid 1950s * Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski, 1968-1969
* John Frusciante, guitarist for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, present * Glenn Frey, 1970's
* James Frey, presumably mid-90's, however, his account of his time there, in My Friend Leonard had a compressed timeline
* Roman Gabriel, former quarterback of the Los Angeles Rams, lived on Skyline Drive, 1970s * Esther Galil, present
* Balthazar Getty rented a house on the corner of Laurel Canyon Blvd. and Laurelmont Dr., 1990s* Jackson Browne, 1960s-70s
* [[Erin Hamilton] recording artist, daughter of Carol Burnett, 1990s on Lookout Mountain Ave.* Robert A. Heinlein, 1940s
* Katherine Helmond, present* Jimi Hendrix, summer 1968* Maya Asztinx, Present* Chris Hillman, 1960s
* Harry Houdini, 1919-1921* Jim Hutton, 1970s* Boris Karloff, 1930s* Anthony Kiedis, 1990s-present* Ed Kienholz, artist
* Carole King, 1970's-90's* C. M. Kornbluth, 1940s* Robby Krieger, 1960's-70's* K.D. Lang, musician, present
* Leadbelly (Huddie William Ledbetter), blues singer and musician lived as subtenant on Merrywood Drive, in a house which was damaged by fire 1944, then remodeled by R.M. Schindler when he was trying to get work as a studio musician in Hollywood.
* Timothy Leary, 1990's * Arthur Lee, and his band Love, in the Béla Lugosi house on Blue Heights Rd, 1960s
* Sharmagne Leland-St. John, poet, concert performer, film-maker, author, lived on Prospect Drive 1965, Fareholm Drive '68-'70, Ridpath '71 and on 34 acres known as Lookout Mountain Park with Paul A. Rothchild, record producer until '74, has lived in her present home on Merrywood Drive off Lookout Mountain since 1986 * Daisy-Alexandra Sylbert-Torres, Film costumer 1986-2002 * Martyn LeNoble, bassist for Porno For Pyros, Jane's Addiction, and The Cult* Jenny Lewis, Present * Tom Leykis, syndicated radio talk show host, 1989-93* Bessie Love, silent film actress, lived at 8227 Lookout Mountain Ave, reportedly haunted, 1920's* Josh Lucas, actor, present* Béla Lugosi, Blue Heights Road* Sue Lyon, 1960s (during first marriage, on Kirkwood)* Joel Madden, present * Marilyn Manson, 1997-2004, residence is on Appian Way at the famed 'Mary Astor House', built in the 1920s as a 'Hills hideaway for actress Mary Astor, who used the home secretly for her romantic trysts with studio execs and other notables; Marilyn Manson wrote the entire Mechanical Animals album at this house, and much of it was recorded at 'The White Room' -- Manson's home recording studio in his pool house * Ray Manzarek, 1970's * Alicia Silverstone, present * Gardner McKay, actor, author* Steve Martin, late 1960s* Bob Masse, late 1960s* John Mayall, 1969-1979 House burned down, see the 1968 blues album Blues from Laurel Canyon* Monet Mazur 2000s, rented on Merrywood Drive.
* Mark McGrath, singer, Sugar Ray, host of Extra, present* Roger McGuinn, 1960's* Jillian Michaels
* Joni Mitchell, 1960's- 1970s on Lookout Mountain Ave. Still owns the house.* Robert Mitchum, 1940s-'60s
* Tom Mix, cowboy film star, 1920's * Keith Moon, mid-1970s, Studio City side of Laurel Canyon* Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage Against The Machine and Audioslave, present* Jim Morrison, lived behind the Canyon Country Store, late 1960s
* Mark Mothersbaugh, musician, composer, artist, founder of Devo, present
* Douglas Anne Munson, novelist, attorney, on Kirkwood Dr., late 1950s, attended Wonderland Ave. Elementary School
* Graham Nash, 1960's- 70's* Harry Falk, T.V. director former husband of child actress Patty Duke. 1968-1970. 8046 Fareholm Drive. * Patty Duke, Child actress. Bought house on Fareholm from former husband Harry Falk.
* Buzz Osborne, singer, guitarist for The Melvins present* Mackie Osborne, artist, present* Gram Parsons, early-1970s
* Adam Pascal, present* Iggy Pop, 1970s* Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank, Jr. 1960s - present
* Trent Reznor, 1995-1997* Jonathan Rice, Present* Keith Richards, 1970s* Nicole Richie, present
* The Rolling Stones, 1970s, interestingly, The Rolling Stones occupied the same house mentioned above, the 'Mary Astor House' in which Marilyn Manson lives today; their film, Cocksucker Blues was filmed here* Paul Rothchild, producer, The Doors, Crosby Stills & Nash 1960's-90's * Rick Rubin, and his studio The Mansion where the Red Hot Chili Peppers recorded Blood Sugar Sex Magic, Stadium Arcadium and shot the film Funky Monks. Others who have recorded here include Johnny Cash, Slayer, Audioslave, Slipknot, Jay-Z, Linkin Park, System of a Down, Maroon 5, The Mars Volta.* Meg Ryan, present* Betye Saar, 1950s-70s* Alison Saar, 1950s-70s* John Saxon, 1960s-70s (lived on Jewett Dr.)* Kesha (singer) (Ke$ha), present
* Slash, guitarist for Guns N' Roses, Velvet Revolver, 1976-mid-'80s* Matt Sorum drummer for The Cult, Guns N' Roses, Velvet Revolver 2006- present* Dusty Springfield, 1970s* Danny Sugerman, Author, No One Here Gets Out Alive and Wonderland Avenue, manager of The Doors & Iggy Pop 1970s* John Taylor bassist for Duran Duran, 1995-1998* Lloyd Thaxton, 1960's
* Justin Timberlake, present* Ian Thorpe, present* Peter Tork, mid 1960s* Mark Volman, late 1960s
* Victoria Vetri, actress, ex-Playmate of the Year* Orson Welles, lived on Greenvalley Road, late 1970'* Pete Wentz, present
* Brian Wilson, 1960s* Chuck Wright, bassist for Quiet Riot, present* Neil Young, late 1960s* Frank Zappa, 1968-1993
* Travis Keller, present* Frances Farmer, American actress and husband Leif Erickson American actor. Hollywood Hills Road. Late 1930s early 1940s.* Claudia Jennings, American actress, Playboy Playmate of the Year, Playboy centerfold. On Woodrow Wilson, then on Ridpath, until her death in a car accident in Malibu in 1979* Tommy Boyce, Boyce and Hart, Studio City side of Laurel Canyon at "Sunshine Park"* Bobby Hart, Boyce and Hart on Woodrow Wilson in two separate locations form the 1960s to present* Hedge Capers & Donna Carson, A & M recording artists Hedge and Donna 1960s to 1970s off Ridpath then after divorce Hedge moved to Stanley Hills Road* Peter Walker, Vanguard recording artist concert performer. Rainy Day Raga Second Poem to Karmela Father of American Folk Raga. Played music behind Timothy Leary's "Celebrations" slide shows. Rented a room in a house owned by Fred Tackett Little Feat 1966.* Fred Tackett, Guitarist. [Little Feat]] 1960s.

It certainly make me wonder about these people, they must know the history of their neighbourhood. I suppose they also do not fit in with those that are not of their own kind. I think that most people in the entertainment industry, know about the Illuminati and are too scared to speak out, for fear of loosing everything. Perhaps they keep their heads down and look for a spiritual way out, though that is also a part of the matrix as well. After having lived a life of wanton debauchery i suppose its good news to be told God will forgive if you repent. Johnny Cash comes to mind.

Signing at contract with the devil for the price of fame and success obviously is too much to resist for most people.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:15 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Two possibilities. Either as I said above - they couldn't deliver with the technology they had available at the time or they could (and had already done so) but prefer not to talk about it for reasons they won't share.

But Russia, China, Japan etc all know this was hoaxed so they'd of known about whatever classified information that was not for public knowledge. I doubt The US would share their Super Duper technical aeronautics with other nations IMHO . I have my own beliefs as to why this was hoaxed and by all nations knowing this fraudulent mission only strengthens my favoured thoughts of reasoning

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:29 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

I KNOW enough about the effects of low or zero gravity to understand that moondust (regardless of its composition) should not be pulled toward the lunar surface as though it were experiencing earth gravity. Which is PRECISELY what we see in all of NASA's lunar rover films.

You know NOTHING about the effects of low or aero gravity. You COULD know a helluva lot about the effects of zero gravity if you read the tonnage of materials available freely due to the fact that so many nations and so many astronauts have in so many decades experienced it and done an array of endless tests and experiment in such conditions. Which continue even as we type. That is where our knowledge of zero gravity comes from. But if you don't believe humans have been, then all you can do is guess. As you have nothing but your own imagination to go on.

Mugwump wrote:

Next you'll be telling me the astronauts somehow managed to control their bouncing across the surface to such an extent that they never managed to bound higher than one might have expected to see on the earth. Or did they load themselves down with six-hundred pounds of lead before they popped the hatch?

Your ignorance of mass and gravity is embarrassing. The buggies were designed to operate on the Moon not Earth. The astronauts naturally went very steadily at first, and soon learned the handling characteristics and were able to travel faster and manoeuvre more. How much they would "bounc" would have been easily predictable and their suspension was obviously not ever going to be the same as if they'd stripped it off a '65 Chevy truck, now was it? I find your tendency to simply watch a video and draw final conclusions based on just what you somehow "think" a buggy "should" bounce like pretty odd. And 100% unscientific.

But you can SEE for yourself what the buggy did, and what the regolith did. You could usefully spend time doing the maths and science to work out why, instead of obsessing with your knee-jerk irrational position that (a) it never happened and that if so (b) NASA, despite having billions at their disposal, couldn't even come up with fakes that could fool even some guy calling himself "Mugwump" stuck in a loft in Wigan.

Mugwump wrote:

As for the suits - you are deluding yourself.

One of us is, but it's not me. The suits exist still, for anyone who wnats to go and see.

Mugwump wrote:

For a start whatever reflective properties they possessed would have been shot to hell as the thin electrostatically charged dust began to adhere to the material. In many photographs they are literally caked in the stuff up to the midriff. The temperature would have continued to rise from the first minute. And with the lack of any air currents there would have been nowhere for that heat to go.

But this "shooting to hell" didn' happen, though. (If it had, and their systems had been unable to cope, they could of course have rapidly terminated the EVA). Also, as explained, the regolith is a poor conductor of heat so would not have the effect you are claiming. I don't know about "electrostatically charged" and can't be bothered to look it up as I don't see the relevance. Again, you are positing some effect which you then promote to fact. What tests in 1/6th g and vacuum in matching conditions have you carried out which support your knee-jerk top-of-your head thoughts?

Mugwump wrote:

It's an even tougher sell for the lunar lander. Whilst parts of the ship were coated in reflective mylar - many other regions were little more than bare metal. Even if they cranked the air-conditioning up to maximum they had no way of dumping nearly twice the heat of a boiling kettle bearing down of them every second of every minute of every hour in direct sunlight.

Once again, the conditions the lander would face on the surface were something that were almost 100% predictable due to earlier reseacrh and unmanned craft. So, the lander had been at great cost and very carefully specially designed and built to withstand the known conditions that it would face. And they all did. They all worked exactly as they had been built to work. [/quote]

Mugwump wrote:

You are far too invested in this myth to remain objective.

Trust you to put up a straw man. The Apollo program was and alays will remain one of mankind's greatest achievements and it is sad that there are obsessives and pseudo-scientists who claim it was all fake, but they have nothing to support their crazy notions than half-baked theories that have been debunked to death, when people can be bothered, and anyway, if you are a moon-hoax adherent then you are fixed in that delusion much in the same way peope ike Stanley are fixed in the flat earth, no satellites, no Skky tv, no IIS etc etc delusions. But you have to belive in delusion after delusion afer delsuion to keep t all going. I have no "myth". I have read and watched the scioentific facts as they have emerged for many decades and it all fits perfectly. It is ironic that the deluded why come up with "top-of-the-head" pseduoo-science, who are thus the only myth-crreators in this, should accuse the scientists of belief in "myths". But it is also normal for these delusionals.

Mugwump wrote:

The truth is no amount of evidence will ever convince you that NASA is dishonest.

There you go again, you jump from my knowledge to 100% satisfaction that the Moon landings were real, to some mad conclusion that this eans I would believe every word NASA would ever say, or that i think NASA would always make fully public every single aspect of what they ever do and why they do it. Are you mad? Of course I don't think that, what samne person would/ Of course NASA is heavily bound up wiuth the US's military, security etc. organisations and of course they keep secret whole swathes of whatever they are all between them up to. Twas always thus and ever will be. You chose to use the word "dishonest", though, not me. The plainly obvious scenario is that they keep secret parts of what they do.

Mugwump wrote:

Quite why you should be so willing to believe the statements of a military division set up by people who openly lied about their involvement in the cold-blooded slaughter of millions of innocents during WWII escapes me.

As I have always been keenly interested in space the vast majority of what I know and have read over decades is from researchers, astronomers, physicist and other very clever, learned and knowledgeable people who have no connection whatsoever with NASA, the military or other space powers. NASA of course provides amazing quantities of raw data from all the endeavours they are engaged in but then so do all the observatories around the planet, radio telescopes, worldwide university research departments etc etc. The overwhelming weight of all the evidence that I have seen and readis where I take my position from. Not a "belief in NASA statements", whatever they may be.

Mugwump wrote:

This is the very same organisation which Gus Grissom's son openly accused of MURDER after his father complained that the entire Apollo program was a shambles and even went so far as to call a press conference to record his disgust.

So at least you believe that Gus Grissom died horribly, then? Why did they have an actual machine in which he could actually perish, though, if they were not actually building one to go to the Moon? How could the program at the same time be "a shambles" and also not actually exist?

Mugwump wrote:

I guess it just goes to prove the old adage - fooling people is easy. Convincing people they've been fooled is not.

Indeed, and that is precisely 100% how I feel about people like (in this respect) you and other Moon-hoax adherents. To your credit you have done a whole bunch of research and are very informed on other strange goings on such as JFK etc., but as often happens (Stan being an extreme example) some people tend to start to believe that nothing was ever true, and everything we know is fake. A short step left to reptilians and anal probes. For my part, I remain able to detect delusions and pdeudo-scientific bullcrap very well, thanks.

Re: NASA and Space general conspiracy discussions : Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:46 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

In debates such as these defenders of the official narrative at some point triumphantly declare victory with nauseating arguments such as this:

Bear in mind that the person who wrote this claims to have a science-based Ph.D.

"Though I fear few conspiracists have a level of intelligence high enough to actually carry out this experiment, there is a way to empirically prove that man has been on the moon. Why?

Because the astronauts put a bunch of mother*&$^ing reflectors on the moon, that's why!

Here's how to shut up your conspiracist friend in five convenient steps:

1 - Grab a high-power laser and a light sensor

2 - Point the high-power laser at any of the Lunar Laser Ranging RetroReflectors:
coordinates degrees N degrees E
(on the moon -duh) (latitude ) (longitude)
Apollo 11 LRRR 0.67337 23.47293
Apollo 14 LRRR -3.64421 -17.47880
Apollo 15 LRRR 26.13333 3.62837

3 - Fire a densely-packed lightbeam at one of these coordinates (with a pulse frequency unique to it so your conspiracist friend cannot pretend it's just space noise).

4 - ????? a couple seconds (you know, because light travels at ~c=~300.000km/sec and the moon is at ~300.000km)

5 - measure light that has been mirrored back to your sensor.

6 - Profit by making your conspiracy theorist friend shut the hell up.

Science 1 - Fruitcakes 0"

Without using the Internet can anyone hazard a guess at the fatal flaw in the above reasoning? If not you are in good company because no less an intellect than Dr. Brian "D:REAM" Cox publicly swallowed this argument in a fifty minute episode on BBC2 without question.

The reflectors are on the Moon and non-NASA laser technology confirms this. What's your point?

Also, in the very recent past, China's Chang'e-2 and Chang'e-3 missions produced what they claimed was the most detailed lunar mapping ever. This included, according to the Chinese scientists, clear evidence of all the Apollo landing sites. My question to you is this: do you believe that these Chinese scientists are now just participating in the alleged hoax and cover-up? Really? If they are not, what does Occam tell us?