Seinfeld

SEINFELD BLOG

Seinfeld DVD Complete Series Box Set

Seinfeld Script Search:

"Moon Landing?" or "No Moon Landing?"

1 | 2 Next
Author Message
Jimmy







PostPosted: June 22, 2006 10:59 AM 

There are two types of people in the world. The "Moon Landings," and the "No Moon Landings." Which are you?

The United States is considering future moon landings. In your opinion, can they really go, or will Ron Howard be cordoning off the Mojave Desert for his biggest gig yet?

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 1



PostPosted: June 22, 2006 12:54 PM 

Obviously, nobody can prove they didn't go, so anyone questioning that will come off like nut. So let's just say that it's POSSIBLE it was all a hoax.

Mookie
Magnificent Bastard

Posts: 2285

Reply: 2



PostPosted: June 23, 2006 11:44 AM 

Well, anything's possible...

Bookman Author Profile Page
Condo Board President

Posts: 2988

Reply: 3



PostPosted: June 23, 2006 12:53 PM 

You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh*t. That's not possible.

Mookie
Magnificent Bastard

Posts: 2285

Reply: 4



PostPosted: June 23, 2006 2:24 PM 

[salutes] The Government!! [/satlute]

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 5



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 8:31 PM 

It is possible to go to the moon and it did already happen. That's my opinion. If they can launch satellites into space so that we can watch the TV we watch and talk on cell phones, then a couple more kilometres can't be that hard. Took a while for me to actually notice this thread.

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 6



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 8:59 PM 

But there's something called the radiation belt, as far as some people are concerned. So there's more to do with it than just distance. I'm not offering an opinion either way, because I know nothing about astro-physics or whatever else it takes to form an opinion on this, I'm just saying.........

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 7



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 10:07 PM 

They've recently developed a very high-tech, multi-layered material that protects spacecraft and astronauts today. From what I've heard on the documentaries, you either have it, or you die.

What did they use back in the sixties, aluminum foil and flannel blankets?

J. Chiles
Low-Talker

Posts: 5

Reply: 8



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 10:07 PM 

Like almost everyone who had half a brain and who attended the University of Iowa as an undergrad between the mid 50’s and the late 80’s, I took Astronomy 101. I took Astronomy 101 because the lecture section was taught by the one and only Dr. James Van Allen – who discovered and gave his name to the afore referenced Van Allen Radiation Belts. The man was, and is, a wizard, a true star. Random astro-physics problems were invited as a part of his always entertaining and often interactive class sessions. While all else present, including graduate assistants and other very learned colleagues of Van Allen, would be furiously punching numbers into their calculators over a period of tens of minutes, often to no avail, Dr. Van Allen would simply stand in the front of the hall, scratch his chin a bit, ponder, and then write his answer on an overhead transparency. At which point as everyone else had laboriously sweated out the answer or given up entirely, the light of the overhead projector would be clicked on and, lo and behold, Dr. Van Allen’s always correct answer would be exposed for all to look upon, slack-jawed as they were.

Anyway, after a few years there, and during my own graduate school days, I became a friend of Dr. Van Allen. Actual friends. Had dinner with him. Talked to him as an equal (well, sorta). I and a few of us were among the very first in the world to see the Voyager images returned from Saturn – a project in which Van Allen was intimately involved. I often heard him RAIL ( and I mean MOCKINGLY rail – it was ALWYS his turn to mock on this subject) about how manned space flights of the sort to the moon were, putting it politely, a total waste of dough and that unmanned probes held, by far, the biggest bang for the buck. However, even HE spoke of the men ON the moon. It happened. If Dr. Van Allen says it happened, it happened. Bank on it.

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 9



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 10:10 PM 

By "recently" I think it was early 90s.

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 10



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 10:16 PM 

I once had dinner with Carl Sagan. I asked him if the moon was really made of cheese. He excused himself to go to the restroom and I never saw him again.

J. Chiles


Posts: 5139

Reply: 11



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 10:18 PM 

Refunder

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 12



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 11:23 PM 

My neighbors pet monkey is the half brother of the monkey that they shot into space....That monkey was alright.

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 13



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 11:27 PM 

If I were a billionaire, my first purchase would be a flight in space. Probably the most thrilling and unbelievable experiences known to man. (That is of course if you don't black out)

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 14



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 11:31 PM 

As for the distance remark, it was a joke. The radiation, the huge variations in temperature, friction heat, the extraordinary amount of fuel, the crazy acceleration, martians, don't let anyone fool you...it's tough.

cousin jeffrey
Vile Weed

Posts: 1714

Reply: 15



PostPosted: July 7, 2006 11:33 PM 

And I know you know it was not a serious remark. But you know, these days you can never be too careful.

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 16



PostPosted: July 9, 2006 10:43 AM 

Well, there you go, Jackie. If Van Allen says they went through his own "belt", then thaqt issue is moot.
There are other factors that conspiray theorists point to. Like the shadows in pictures, no crater where they landed, the flag waving in non-existant wind, no stars in the sky, etc...
Like I said, I know nothing about this and am far from being a science (or any other kind of) expert. These are just things I've read when I've Googled the subject. It's interesting either way, but I can't form an opinion on it.

Jimmy


Posts: 5505

Reply: 17



PostPosted: July 9, 2006 4:32 PM 

The photo errors were brought upon by people who don't understand optics, reflected light, perspective, etc. None of the photos have any obvious inconsistencies and can all be explained easily. An atmosphere is not required for light to bounce and reflect, and cause unusally lit areas, or shadowing... just other, nearby, surrounding objects. As for the stars in the sky... my feeling is that unless one has stood on the moon, one wouldn't know whether or not they'd even be visible what with gasses, or whatever else could be out there. I don't know how long the exposures were, but starlight usually requires longer than normal exposures to show up on film. But again, it's an evironment one can't even comment on unless one has been there.

I think the flag was obviously made to be wavy. They obviously realized it couldn't fly with the moon's gravity, and that having it just hang against it's pole would sorta defeat the whole purpose of it being identifiably an "American" flag. It's obviously not an ordinary flag.

If you look at the breathtaking photos of the earth above the moon's horizon, you have to ask yourself
"If these photos are fake, then why did science-fiction photography and films still suck for so many years afterward?" Perhaps because they couldn't emulate such concepts at that time?

The only real controversy I can see is the radiation belt, and NASA's evasiveness (though totally understandable) on the subject. Everything else is a joke.

I don't have much faith in our government being honest, but I do tend to have faith in what brilliant scientists have to say. They know the future will eventually either support, or contradict, their theories. I find it hard to believe that if going to the moon was impossible in the sixties, that a large group of intelligent men and women, who believed it would one day be possible, would risk the embarrassment when environmental inconsistencies became obvious with real future moon landings.

I think Neil Armstrong's refusal to even justify the matter with a response, is the strongest reason for me, personally, to be a believer.

I just wanted to stir up some shit with this thread... but it didn't work. Oh well. Confused

Gendison
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 18



PostPosted: July 10, 2006 1:32 AM 

We're actually discussings... um... rationally. (I was going to say "intelligently", but I was being rediculous)...It's as if we stoped having sex.

Of course! Absolute zero!!!

J. Chiles Author Profile Page


Posts: 5139

Reply: 19



PostPosted: August 9, 2006 11:47 PM 

Dr. James Van Allen died yesterday at 91. RIP, Jim.

Gendison Author Profile Page
Bad Breaker Upper

Posts: 3306

Reply: 20



PostPosted: August 10, 2006 6:14 AM 

That's got nothing to do with it. The man was out of shape.


(But seriously...RIP)

1 | 2 Next

Join the discussion:
















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys








Copyright ©2003, Mark Carey.