|
Post by Kiwi on Mar 25, 2008 7:35:31 GMT -4
I do understand what you're saying, Jay; my frustration comes in no small part from a demand that we explain everything combined with Turbonium's failure to explain anything. My thoughts too. I'm still waiting for Turbonium to answer my post of 17 Dec, 2006, 10:37pm:
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 25, 2008 10:34:46 GMT -4
Although he has asked us to address the claim of inconsistent movement, I'm not convinced Turbonium has returned to re-engage on Apollo. The thread here is about why few conspiracists seem to come to ApolloHoax anymore. Turbonium has reported what others have said about their reluctance to visit here. We disagree with the reasons, of course, but Turbonium may just be the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 25, 2008 15:55:00 GMT -4
Even you got caught on UM making up a quote which you claimed came from NASA, then trying to excuse it as a joke. No, the person who falsely accused me of all that rubbish got caught. Seems you didn't read up to that part. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the habit of HB dishonesty appears to be catching. Here's the link. Note what actually happened. Turbonium made up the quote, someone asked for the source, and in post #408 turbonium admitted he'd made it up as a joke. No accuser, no false accusations. You're the one who's been caught, turbo.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 25, 2008 22:56:58 GMT -4
Here:Joke or not, he did indeed make up the quote. No one accused him of making it up; someone asked him for a source, and turbonium said No one "falsely accused", or accused him at all. And, of course, NASA was well aware of radiation hazards in space before the mid-1960s. I was just flipping through The Radiation Environment of Apollo (Interim Report, October 21, 1963), which discusses the ongoing work of mitigating the radiation hazard to Apollo missions based on ground- and space-based observations and intensive theoretical work. The primary threat was already clearly established to be solar particle events, and this report discusses mission aborts in response to events indicating an SPE onset, and doses received under various scenarios. The Van Allen belts were known to be a lesser but significant hazard, and the report also discusses doses received under various translunar injection trajectories, as well as the evolution of the spacecraft shielding. ETA: I reread the post this morning and changed "1960s" to "mid-1960s", which was what I intended and referring to turbonium's quote.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 26, 2008 0:30:12 GMT -4
So are you saying Turbonium showed up to make a post about how few HBers are posting here anymore and then left to prove the point?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Mar 26, 2008 1:07:22 GMT -4
So are you saying Turbonium showed up to make a post about how few HBers are posting here anymore and then left to prove the point?He'll be back... Turbs has never been able to prove anything. ;D Cz
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 26, 2008 15:46:43 GMT -4
So are you saying Turbonium showed up to make a post about how few HBers are posting here anymore and then left to prove the point? Meanwhile countering my remark about HB dishonesty by making a dishonest post.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 29, 2008 7:43:19 GMT -4
No, the person who falsely accused me of all that rubbish got caught. Seems you didn't read up to that part. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, the habit of HB dishonesty appears to be catching. Here's the link. Note what actually happened. Turbonium made up the quote, someone asked for the source, and in post #408 turbonium admitted he'd made it up as a joke. No accuser, no false accusations. You're the one who's been caught, turbo. You still aren't getting the point, so I'll give it one more try.. It all began with my post (in italics) below. I've bolded the relevant comment) ... 38 years ago, it wasn't that difficult to put men on the Moon.
In 1961, JFK announced men would land on the Moon before the end of the decade. And so we did, 8 years later.
But times have really changed since then. And hardly for the better.
In 2004, Bush announced men would return to the Moon by 2015......well, by 2020, tops.
To the casual observer, it may seem quite odd that it could take up to twice as long to return to the Moon as it did the first time, several decades ago.
Others are puzzled as to why the return trip apparently will require two rockets, when they only needed one rocket, back then.
The answer is really quite simple - we now know much more than they did in the 1960's!
For example, space radiation can be lethal nowadays. In 1969, it was just as lethal. But, since we didn't know that, it wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was during the Gemini program in the mid-60's when NASA coined their now-famous phrase...."What you don't know can't hurt you!"
As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit.
I can't wait. What I now realize, sadly, is that some people depend entirely on "smiley face" emoticons after any comment that requires a modicum of insight, or intelligence a notch or two above primates. The "smiley" assists these unfortunate people in making the appropriate behavioral response. My post, as it turned out, lacked the "smileys" that these people are so utterly dependent upon. If only I'd added a "laughing smiley", then none of this would have happened.... No smiley = serious comment So, the "smiley" group challenged me on my comment about NASA coining the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you!" "I've never heard that. Who said it?", I was asked. I replied that I had said it. That it was intended as a joke. "No, you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!", declared one of the brighter members of the group. The others realized the remarkable insight shown by their fellow "smiley", and joined in the accusation that I was "lying" after "being caught". Since it was impossible to explain concepts such as humor to them, I tried a different approach. I asked them "Why would I lie? For what purpose? What possible reason? They were stumped, as one would expect. So they just kept on repeating the comment "you're just saying that 'cause we caught you!" - over and over. Finally, one of them said I lied "because it was a false statement". I explained that a lie is a false statement deliberately intended to deceive. The "smiley" replied - "No, it isn't. I define a lie as a false statement, regardless of the intent." (Which means that actors, authors, etc. are habitual liars, I suppose...) Anyway, that was how it all ended, sort of... Months later, a couple of "smileys" briefly noted how I had "lied". I wasn't surprised by that, and knew it was futile to try and explain something beyond their ability to grasp. Are you able to advance beyond the level of a "smiley", gwiz?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 29, 2008 7:58:31 GMT -4
Here:Joke or not, he did indeed make up the quote. No one accused him of making it up; someone asked him for a source, and turbonium said No one "falsely accused", or accused him at all. Yet another who fails to understand the basics of this issue. Yes, I did indeed make up the quote. Well done. No, I did not say I was "falsely accused" or "accused" of "making it up". Poorly done. I was falsely accused of lying. Read my last post, and I think (hope) you'll understand...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 29, 2008 8:03:13 GMT -4
Maybe you need some encouragement....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 29, 2008 8:17:33 GMT -4
Triple bonus points to the first one who can explain the joke.
Another point if you know why it's of no value as a lie..
If you can grasp those concepts, then you're just one step away from leaving the Ozarks...
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2008 10:19:44 GMT -4
Turbonium, it appears that no-one here can see how it is a joke, just as no-one on UM could either. You sense of humour is obviously too sophisticated for the likes of us. Perhaps you could explain it to us, instead.
In any case, all I accused you of here was making up a quote. There is no doubt at all that you did just that, so your denials and talk of false accusations is disingenuous at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Mar 29, 2008 12:16:08 GMT -4
As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit. Not to change the topic or anything, as I don't lurk on UM and have no interest in he-said-she-said irrelevancies, but you surely can't be serious about the above statement? If you have done any amount of research on the Apollo program, perhaps you could explain to us just what the major fuel requirements post-TEI were? What fuel would be required "once they get back to Earth"? When you claim it was"little known" that they had no fuel when preparing for a direct insertion into the Earth's atmosphere, do you mean, despite the widely available evidence, that it wasn't known to others, or just to yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 29, 2008 12:38:52 GMT -4
Turbonium, as someone who uses a lot of smileys, I'd have to say that your 'made up quote' certainly deserved one. Inserting it in the middle of a serious issue (radiation) like that does not make any sense from a humourous standpoint. ....and no, I'm not from the Ozarks. I AM CANADIAN.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 29, 2008 14:34:35 GMT -4
As for needing two rockets in the future? It's a little known fact that Apollo capsules were literally running on fumes by the time they got back to Earth. Next time, we'll have a second, fully fueled-up rocket waiting for us in Earth orbit. Not to change the topic or anything, as I don't lurk on UM and have no interest in he-said-she-said irrelevancies, but you surely can't be serious about the above statement? The Apollo capsules weren't running at all by the time they got back to Earth. The propulsive maneuvers were long finished by then.
|
|