Question - Yuri Gagarin was the Nth Russian launched into space?

What evidence would that be photos and TV feed that you have been TOLD is fact?

I know the world governments dont give a fook about me, you, Stan or anyone for that matter they care about themselves and there own family same as everyone i mean why would anyone care for anyone else other than themselves and there own?

Society in a whole cares about one thing 'MONEY' thats right 'COLD HARD CASH' as that is the only thing worth caring about as it gets you firstly food to live then material possessions that give us all a sense of achievement and well being.
But after you have all the food you can eat, and all the material possessions in the world whats left to gain?
'POWER' and having power over people is the only other thing that will satisfy the human mind after these things all brought about by the super riches of the worlds 'GREED' and that is what i believe

Just remember World starvation could be ended tomorrow but will it? certainly not will it ever certainly wont.
But will the space programs of the world carry on? certainly will, and will the worlds 'GREEDY'
get even 'GREEDIER' most defiantly.

Nope.


I can only speak for myself, of course, but I care deeply for both humanity, wildlife, and the planet. If all you care about is as you say then I pity you, but its your call.


Just for one instance, what "power" have the new images of Pluto given anybody?


What, the space program that you appear to believe has never existed? Well, I'll be darned ...

I never said i didn't believe in the space program?
I just dont believe man has been to the moon. Don't forget the supposed moon landings were in the height of the cold war.....
If Russia decided to come out now and say America never went to the moon here is proof 'AMERICANS ARE LIERS' this would undoubtedly trigger WW3

I mean America (and the uk) did invade Iraq and kill Saddam because he changed the oil prices from dollars to euros.
Also they invaded Libia and killed Gadaffi as he planned to introduce the gold African Dinar as currency and it would have destroyed the dollar? coincidence? i think not......

Pluto has nothing to do with the moon landings and i have been very interested in the Pluto mission fascinating stuff.



EDIT: Sorry forgot to add.... Do you really lose sleep at night over humanity, wildlife and the planet?
Are you a vegetarian?
Do you drive, take a bus or catch a train?

Also to point out i dont believe the Earth is flat.

Well, as an knowledgeable individual, you will be aware of, as well as being told about (lies again?), all the spin-off technologies resulting from the imaginary Apollo space programs and their ilk that have benefitted you.

come again????

You know I often wondered why the USSR and now Russia haven't denounced this hoax.
I always thought that they didn't want to make themselves look silly, out of jealousy and all.
But now I know it would spark WW3, it all makes sense.



And where is this proof by the way?

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-calls-investigation-into-whether-us-moon-landings-happened-10327714.htmlYou did?[/url

[size=150[iCan anybody explain why the American flag has no shadow please. [/i[/size

According to Pravda on April 12th 2001 - Yuri Gagarin was the TENTH Russian astronaut in space.

Can anyone guess what happened to the previous NINE?

Forget the shadow - what is the source of fill lighting from the rear?

Remember - the astronauts carried no secondary light sources. No reflectors. No gobos etc. etc.

Question: Given that we were successfully bouncing radar/radio waves off the moon in the fifties - why did we suddenly need to place a reflector on the moon to bounce back visible light (supposedly to accurately measure the distance between the earth and the moon using a laser-receiver setup)?

Funny how Dr. Brian Cox never thought about mentioning this fact when he spent an hour explaining why this experiment completely debunks Moon Hoax theories...

Question: Why is exposing turtles to the same level of radiation a lunar astronaut might expect to take during a mission (this invariably crops up in debates about whether astronauts could have survived the intense bombardment of high-energy particles) a TERRIBLE idea?

Yeah, an investigation request in 2015 at a point in time where Russia are basically doing the Saddam Hussein/South Park thing of "Hey guy, don't look over here, look over there"

If the USSR had made these allegations back in 1969 when the Cold War was still in full swing, then maybe they'd have a little more weight to them.

Question: When the IMAX team joined the shuttle to film work carried out on the Hubble Space Telescope (on this mission the shuttle flew higher than it's usual "safe" orbiting altitude) - how many SECONDS did they say their film stock could tolerate exposure to ambient radiation levels before they were forced to barricade it behind water tanks?

Oh, I get it - the Russians are now the bad guys.



Besides, I hardly think the Soviets were likely to rock the boat given that one of the worst famines in living memory had forced them to grovel to the Americans for enough grain to feed their starving millions.

Characteristic "fogging" effect of radiation on film.



This is what you might expect to see when 800ASA film stock is exposed to the levels of radiation emitted by a CAT scanner.

Jarrah White's [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D3o1htlz9cexcellent and exhaustive investigation (part one of ten)[/url into the HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS deaths of astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and pad safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron (and spouse).

Suffice to say A LOT of people at NASA are telling some very big LIES.

So if the Soviets, who just about everybody accepts were ahead of the US in terms of rocketry, lost NINE ASTRONAUTS before Gagarin made orbit (and we only have their word on this) - is it reasonable to accept that the US could manage to successfully complete all but one Moon mission - with even the crew Apollo XIII crew returning safely?

Bear in mind that compared with a "simple" mission to orbit the earth - landing and retrieving astronauts on and from the moon respectively is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

And let us not forget than the LEM had NEVER even been TESTED under similar conditions.

They would have needed to store a small quantity of oxygen. But a re-breather/scrubber solves the problem of carrying large quantities. Still, you need a fair bit of juice to drive it.

Yes I can.
The flag is stuck in a slight depression left to right and so because of a slight ridge the shadow can't be seen.
This is fooking easy!
Do you think the moon's surface is a flat plane?
I suppose YOU would!
Your analytical skills are SHOCKING!!!!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iQuestion. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.[/i'" No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you [ireally[/i think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"[iQuestion. Whilst looking into this my attention was drawn to the question of oxygen supply for two men staying on the moon for 3 days. Looking at diving equipment. The very best Eg for breathing equipment using pure oxygen can give is around 5 hours with a weight of about 20kg, not bad, if using this equipment on the moon however you would have a mass of over half a tonne. Diagrams of the LEM show an oxygen tank, and a separate liquid oxygen tank. To keep oxygen liquid even in space, requires some serious cooling equipment, and a good electricity supply, which I see no sign of or any mention of. Maybe someone could explain or clarify the anecdote of this serious matter.[/i'" No. The technical information of how the spacecraft / landers supported life is exhaustively available. Therefore what you need to do is to read them, and then if you can, point out why you don't believe them, or if they are scientifically incorrect, or whatever. You haven't read a word of any of it, clearly. But here's a clue: the equipment RECYCLED oxygen. Did you [ireally[/i think they took a week or two's worth of 24/7 oxygen bottles for 3 up with them? As a favour, here's a kids' guide to how they escaped from the Apollo 13 emergency, but it tells you a lot, in easy bites, of how the systems work. If they hadn't been able to fix the recycler then they would have died, precisely because of not carrying a vast supply of oxygen to breathe. Enjoy www.howequipmentworks.com/apollo_13/ If you want all the detailed techy stuff: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html

You are looking at one. I've changed my mind countless times on issues such as the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. A good example would be the "Lyndon Johnson did it" argument which emerged in the late nineties. At the time it seemed plausible and I bought into a good deal of it. But as evidence against the theory accumulated I could no longer support it.

I mean, before you put forward this argument (which isn't your own) did you check to see whether it is true? I suspect not.