Any word on Smokestacks?

The smokestacks are part of the antenna factory.

What is BB going to say when they get photos of the Apollo 11 landing site?

Now thats funny!

Doesn't 100cm = a meter?

What is BB going to say when they get photos of the Apollo 11 landing site?

#2 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-07-04 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

What are you going to say when they start making excuses for why you can't see anything?

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. LRO will start flying over the Apollo landing sites in mid-July.

However, the spacecraft will still be in its checkout phase at this time. If LRO does manage to take images of any Apollo sites in July, the pictures will not be at the best possible resolution.

Lol... keep on tryin bobby.

"What is BB going to say when they get photos of the Apollo 11 landing site?

#2 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-07-04 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

What are you going to say when they start making excuses for why you can't see anything?"

I'd say wait for the hi res photos.

What's your answer to MY question?

Will you admit you're a conspiracy nut job when the photo's prove it?

Bob will say, "Facts. Facts. Don't confuse me with the facts."

Carl's dead.

"I wonder what Bob thinks"
Not much.

First it goes up there then it gets baked. Cool.

Did the probe go and take pictures on Moon Base Luna on the back side of the moon?

Will you admit you're a conspiracy nut job when the photo's prove it?

#6 | Posted by babuenthal at 2009-07-04 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag

Will you admit there's a smokestack on the moon since the photos prove it?

"Will you admit there's a smokestack on the moon since the photos prove it?"

I'll wait for the hi res photos.

I'd be willing to bet that we'll find the Apollo 11 landing site before any Lunar smokestacks are imaged.

You still haven't answered MY question, bob.

Babuenthal

The Smokestack pictures are already available--why are they less valid than photos of Apollo 11?

To answer your question--I'll wait for the hi res photos.

"The Smokestack pictures are already available--why are they less valid than photos of Apollo 11?"

The smokestacks have been debunked.

Babuenthal

That "explanation" has been debunked by me on every thread. How about posting the part that explains what it is.

What? ? ?

No color? ? ?

Just joking. This is great stuff.

There's smoke stakes on the moon? Do tell!

In the first photo, is that a foot print on the bottom left?

"There's smoke stakes on the moon? Do tell!"

They're part of the bigfoot factory.

That "explanation" has been debunked by me on every thread.

The photos don't really prove much of anything. There are dozens of explanations more plausible than "smokestack". Of course, you with your sterling background in astronomy have already "debunked" them. Keep telling yourself that. It will certainly go over well in forums of likeminded nutjobs. Among the sane, don't look for such a nice reception.

You've just watched too much star trek while shoveling cheetos into your face in your mom's basement, and it's starting to interfere with your ability to process reality.

"That "explanation" has been debunked by me on every thread."

You've yet to "explain" how a smokestack can exist where there is no oxygen.

Is that an antenna on the moon rover?

"no oxygen"

Ain't much else, either.

IIRC it's ~10E-8 Torr. (0.00000001 Torr)

1 Earth atmosphere is 760 Torr.

More ...

You've yet to "explain" how a smokestack can exist where there is no oxygen.

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've explained it many times before, and I'll explain it again. It amazes me that you even have to ask such a question. You should be embarrassed, but I know you're not.

Just because I call it a Smokestack, doesn't mean it IS a Smokestack. It just looks like a Smokestack and acts like a Smokestack. The guy in the video calls it a Smokestack. It has to be called SOMETHING. However, oxygen on the surface is not necessary for other activities to be going on below the surface. There could--and would---be separate chambers for living, working, and expelling debris onto the moon, if this isn't a natural occurance. Get it? There isn't enough oxygen for humans to breath underwater, yet humans breath underwater all the time--in submarines and scuba gear. Separate chambers. Fire wouldn't even be necessary to get the effect seen in the video, and probably isn't a factor since the "smoke" coming out isn't continuous. The vacuum on the moon would have forcefully expanded any gas that was suddenly exposed to that vacuum, giving the effect seen in the video. In short, calling it a Smokestack, doesn't mean that what came out of it was smoke. What would you call something that looks like a smokestack and acts like a smokestack??

"Just because I call it a Smokestack, doesn't mean it IS a Smokestack."

That's all I need to know. Sums you up quite completely.

"What would you call something that looks like a smokestack and acts like a smokestack??"

In an environment without oxygen?!? Certainly not a "smokestack". But since you've admitted you don't really mean it when you say it, what does it matter?

Danforth

What would you call it? Simple question.

That I don't know what it is, is the point. Do you know what it is? I've never said I knew what it was--I'd like to know what it is.

Is your point--since you don't know what it is, it doesn't exist? Is that what you are trying to say? Since you can't name it---it must not be there?

What do you call that concept?

Danforth

I guess you didn't get the concept of separate chambers either. It COULD be a smokestack. There COULD be a fire below in a separate chamber and when the fire needed more oxygen and the smoke needed to be let out, a valve could open a port to the moon surface as we see, and another valve could pump more oxygen to the fire. I'm sure there is more than one way to have a fire on the moon, so don't get into all the details of valves and tech. Men supposedly lived on the moon, and they needed oxygen too. Separate chambers.

However, I never thought there was a fire there. A fire would be too primitive.

#29

"Could...could...men supposedly lived on the moon..."

Yeah......riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
ght.

"I'm sure there is more than one way to have a fire on the moon"

Not without one of the basic fuels, oxygen.

"so don't get into all the details of valves and tech."

Posts the guy who goes into tech details every time the melting point of steel is mentioned.

#25 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-05 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag

I wonder why the light doesn't bounce up off the ground and light the dark side of that big boulder, and why Schmitt is dark instead of lit up on the side away from the sun since he's so close to that bright boulder. The light from the boulder should have lit up his dark side too.

Speaking of the Rover, Here is a shot of a rooster tail of "moon dust" from the speeding rover. A couple of points. First, the dust should have flown much higher in 1/6th gravity and no atmosphere. What is seen looks very much like what would be expected if the same driving pattern were done on Earth.

Second, the dust piles up into a cloud and falls almost straight down--just like it would on Earth. It does that on Earth because the atmosphere slows down each particle, and let's the still faster moving particles catch up to them, and then they fall quickly.

On the moon, the dust particles would maintain their initial speed and form a perfect arc instead of the peaks we see from the rovers rooster tail.

Danforth

Nice deflection.

What do you call it?

If you have no name for it--does it exist in your mind?

No fire--but lots of heat is available with electricity--no oxygen needed.

"Nice deflection."

Coming from the king, I'll take that as a compliment.

"If you have no name for it--does it exist in your mind?"

No, BoOb, it only exists in your mind.

Posts the guy who goes into tech details every time the melting point of steel is mentioned.

#30 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those points are salient to the discussion. A fire or how it is done on the moon is not important to this discussion. The important thing here is---there is something there that shouldn't be there.

The important thing here is what is it---not how it works. You tell me what it is, and I'll tell you how it works.

Sorry Danforth--You have been reduced to name calling and not even trying to have a discussion.

" A fire or how it is done on the moon is not important to this discussion. "

Of course not...you'd have to explain how a fire occurs without oxygen.

"You tell me what it is, and I'll tell you how it works."

Sorry, I don't play that game. You were the one who proffered the idiotic theory of a "smokestack". Prove it.

The important thing here is what is it---not how it works. You tell me what it is, and I'll tell you how it works.

I wouldn't trust your opinion of how a toaster works, let alone anything having to do with the moon.

You can't seem to wrap your head around the properties of steel or the validity of Occams Razor, for instance. Why should anyone do anything but laugh at you?

"You have been reduced to name calling and not even trying to have a discussion."

Posts the guy who wants to concentrate on the tech when it's a 9/11 tower, but wants to ignore the tech when it comes to smokestacks on the moon.

ZombieHunter

You could try some logic instead of a personal attack.

Occams razor doesn't say a smoky oxygen starved fire can weaken steal.

Have you heard of my list? Do I offend you? You can easily join. It is a list of people I no longer respond to. Sounds sweet right? You can volunteer if you like, and it would probably save time, since I'll toss your ignorant ass on it sooner or later if you start your posts to me with personal attacks.

the tech when it comes to smokestacks on the moon.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 01:46 PM | Reply | Flag

I gave you the tech---if it is a smokestack. I told you how it could be a fire. I told you it could be electric.

I told you that isn't important.

We don't know what it is---any discussion on how it works is not only futile, it is foolish.

You can't even name it, and you want to talk about how it works? Are you calling it a smokestack now? On what do you base that name?

Occams razor doesn't say a smoky oxygen starved fire can weaken steal.

Have you ever seen a blacksmith work red-hot steel? Steel gets more malleable as it gets hotter. You assume that the WTC fires weren't hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of the building because you would rather believe in an elaborate false-flag operation. Nevermind the fact that there is no concrete evidence for this... just anecdotal musings, arguments from ignorance, and leaps of faith. You can't explain why, either. Why fly two planes into the WTC if you could just set off the bombs and do the same job? Why make the towers fall if you could fly two planes into them? Why do both need to happen? Once again, you show complete and total disdain for Occam.

You think that there is something on the moon (which is a dubious assumtion in and of itself), yet you insist that it is a smokestack. When people offer rational explanations, you fraudulently claim to have "debunked" them. Then you say you don't really think it's an martian clean coal plant. You don't want to admit that there is a mundane explnation for the phenomenon because then it loses its mystery. You call it a "smokestack" just because it sounds absurd... and absurdity is your speciality.

I won't ask to be on your list, that's your decision. If I find myself on it one day, I will take it as an honor. It means I got under your skin, and you are too much of a pussy or simply too dull to figure out a proper response. Other than sticking your head in the sand, that is. Don't expect people to hold your hand when you spew nonsense at every opportunity. You're a fucking loon... and if people hurt your oh-so-fragile feelings with their "personal attacks," realize that they are just calling a spade a spade. If you can't take the heat, get off the fucking retort.

A fire without Oxygen...amazing or Electric smoke without oxygen...amazing.....how about electical heat without oxygen....dude i need some of the shit you are smoking....maybe i wont see the smoke...wicked dude

then thing is really....BB come up with the most amazing theories....like the jet with missiles on 9/11.... to the smoke stacks on the moon....yet if you just skip his bullshit and say yea BB you are right.....WHO IS DOING IT???? BB shuts the fuck up and total silence...BB investigation and knowlege takes him to only a certain point....BB does not care about what is really happening.....he whats to hear people say he is right....thats all....so why try to debate somebody whos only focus really is to hear hes right

you cant talk or reason with people like that.....BB investigation does not go past a picture

"You can't even name it, and you want to talk about how it works?"

No, dude...you can't even name it. The problem is yours.

BBob, i have serious yet simple "yes or no" question for you.

Do you believe that there really is a smokestack on the moon?

(Please don't respond with something along the line that you are not sure what it is, and so forth. Simply put, do you believe it is a smokestack?)

Have you heard of my list? Do I offend you? You can easily join. It is a list of people I no longer respond to. Sounds sweet right?

#39 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-05 01:56 PM | Reply

Boob, I think everyone would want to be on that list.

Somebody's gotta be the most idiotic poster on the DR. Know what I mean, Vern?

Have you ever seen a blacksmith work red-hot steel?

Yes.

Steel gets more malleable as it gets hotter.

Agreed.

You assume that the WTC fires weren't hot enough to weaken the structural integrity of the building because you would rather believe in an elaborate false-flag operation.

Now you are building a straw man. Don't say what I believe--say what you believe. I don't assume anything. I can see that the fires are smoky and oxygen starved. I know that kerosene only burns in vapor or mist form---not as a liquid---so the initial balls of flame were really the only input for the jet fuel to the fire. I know that jet fuel in perfect open air conditions doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel. I know that nothing in the WTC could burn hot enough to weaken steel under ideal conditions. What do you think was burning hot enough to weaken steel?

Nevermind the fact that there is no concrete evidence for this... just anecdotal musings, arguments from ignorance, and leaps of faith.

There is plenty of concrete evidence for this---any photo or video of the Towers burning shows small localized smoky oxygen starved fires--no raging inferno. There is no evidence of a fire capable of weakening steel. Again--what do you envision burning hot enough to weaken steel?

You can't explain why, either. Why fly two planes into the WTC if you could just set off the bombs and do the same job?

I believe there were three plots. One by bin Laden, one by Larry Silverstein, and one by the government. The government learned of the plot and let it happen for their own reasons. Silverstein may have learned of it from Israel or the CIA. His buildings needed major reconstruction, and he may have been working with the CIA to make the attack even more horrific and not only save him millions, but make him millions from the insurance.

Why make the towers fall if you could fly two planes into them? Why do both need to happen? Once again, you show complete and total disdain for Occam.

The planes alone wouldn't have brought down the Towers--they were designed for multiple impacts from airliners. Silverstein had access, and either he or the government could have supplied the tech to bring down the towers after the impacts.

You think that there is something on the moon (which is a dubious assumtion in and of itself),

I don't think it is there--I can see it---can you?

Boob, I think everyone would want to be on that list.

#45 | Posted by vernon at 2009-07-05 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

All you gotta do is ask Vernon. Your posts certainly qualify you. I haven't seen anything worthwhile from you ever. Wanna join up?

Simply put, do you believe it is a smokestack?)

#44 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-07-05 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

No--It is not a smokestack in the traditional sense. But it is there, and it shouldn't be.

Now answer this simple question.

What do you call it?

No, dude...you can't even name it. The problem is yours.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag

Pay attention--I call it a smokestack--remember? It wasn't all that long ago. The problem is yours--what do you call it?

#46 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-05 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag:Most Idiotic Poster on the DR

Fuck! I'm still not Barfalo Batshit's list.

"what do you call it?"

BoOb Dust

#53 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-05 02:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

So far---you can change your status easily.

BoOb Dust

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Fine--what is it?

"what is it?"

Don't know, don't care.

Didn't we go to the moon like thirty or forty years ago?

Don't know, don't care.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-05 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know either, but it may be significant. I understand your lack of interest. You have wool to make.

Didn't we go to the moon like thirty or forty years ago?

Not if you ask Batshit Bob.

Not if you ask Batshit Bob.

#60 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-07-05 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

No response to post #48. No response to post #31. Not much of a thinker are you zombie---ah--I see where you got your name. You seek other zombies whose thought processes are as shallow as your own. Good luck---it will be a tough search.

"it may be significant"

Yes, Bob...little subterranean creatures made of fairy dust and green cheese may be making little electrical fires and awaiting the cameras to send out puffs of smoke, hoping against hope someone on Earth deciphers the wisps before it's too late: send more oxygen!

Danforth

Yay--you made the list.

"you made the list."

Lucky me.

"Just because I call it a Smokestack, doesn't mean it IS a Smokestack"
~BuffaloBob

Carl's dead.
"I wonder what Bob thinks"
Not much.
#8 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2009-07-04 08:25 PM

YOU should not involve yourself and leave the "thinking" to those best equipped for it.

Carl was a public denier too, but privately he knew.

"Didn't we go to the moon like thirty or forty years ago?"
Not if you ask Batshit Bob.
#60 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-07-05 04:00 PM

Rationalize for yourself. If you knew anything about the program they did "fake it" allegedly for the public benefit. Many of the models, plans and people who "faked it" still exist - including a mile-long reproduction of the Sea of Tranquility where the stage was set. Every year more and more people, either directly or indirectly related to the programs come forward and implore the military to release the data. Nobody makes their appeal to NASA - the "public" space program. Apparently, not even the President has the ability to force the military to disclose UFO's and aliens.

Some imagine that kind of control is what killed Kennedy - only days after claiming he would nationalize United States oil.

BBob, i don't think it's an object built by any sentient being, human or otherwise. i believe it is either a photographic effect or else a natural phenomena.

Moder8

I know photographic effects. No way something suddenly appears in the middle of a still picture--moves in the same place--starts to fade in the same place---and disappears.

The whole sequence is only onscreen for about 2-3 seconds, and the effect lasts about 1/6th second--about 3 frames. It is a video---no way someone can click the camera that fast.

As to being natural phenomena---then we have to rewrite the science books. Science tells us the moon has had no volcanic activity for BILLONS of years.

Can anyone (with architectural/engineering experience) explain why World Trade Center #7 fell down, when it was not stuck by terrorists?

Hey BB,

I thought you might like the following:

Wanna join up?

#49 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-07-05 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag

HAR~! HAR~!

You think that's a threat? If I don't behave I'll be on the 'enemies list' of some crackpot who thinks the moon really is made of cheese?

Ooooooooo ........... please Boob! Don't do it! Give me another chance!

I want to believe!

Vernon

Just as in real life, I have decided to choose the people I respond to, and ignore the people I don't want to hang out with as much as possible. People who type line after line just wasting my time are people I simply don't have time for. I find that if they are ignored long enough, they usually get the hint. I understand that I might offend, or my posts may be annoying to others also, so I give them the opportunity to join the list as a courtesy, and I think we both end up on the plus side. You really never do make a point, and are simply a troll at best. Your #70 post is a perfect example of a lot of words with nothing to say--a complete waste of time and space, dedicated to nothingness. So, you have made the list. I'm sure we'll both appreciate the decision as time goes by.