|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 14:12:12 GMT -4
Post by nomuse on Apr 19, 2006 14:12:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 18:52:54 GMT -4
Post by frenat on Apr 19, 2006 18:52:54 GMT -4
Even better than that, I've seen the space station with the naked eye from the earth. Once when it was docked with the shuttle I saw it then as well. With low power binocs you could make out both objects. Apollo would have been impossible to hide in orbit.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 19:35:45 GMT -4
Post by Fnord Fred on Apr 19, 2006 19:35:45 GMT -4
Well, that's where the top secret magical alien cloaking device (TM) comes into play. Because, you know, NASA was able to build cloaking devices, crash motorcycles with psychic beams, build massive vaccuum chambers, send out teams of undocumented thugs, and bounce signals off of a dummy spacecraft in real time, but couldn't quite figure out how to build a spacecraft capable of sending three people through some radiation, landing on the moon, and returning. "But Fred, it wasn't just 'some radiation,' it was a SEARING RADIATION HELL!!!!!"
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 20:20:50 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 19, 2006 20:20:50 GMT -4
And that is why you will never be taken seriously here. If you can't remember what the Apollo crew vehicles were called... an easy enough detail to look up and memorize I'm really deep into political and social science right now. NASA is no longer on my front burner. Forgive me for not remembering the name of every nut and bolt, but I want to add some more useless initials beside my name.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 20:49:09 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 19, 2006 20:49:09 GMT -4
Not knowing the name of "every nut and bolt" isn't a problem.
Not understanding even the most basic physical principles before making claims - that's a problem. Not knowing the most major parts before making claims - that's a problem. Churning out a stream of wild claims without doing the slightest research - that's a problem. Ignoring the information that other people provide for you - that's a problem.
Mind you, it's not a problem for us.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 21:34:40 GMT -4
Post by brotherofthemoon on Apr 19, 2006 21:34:40 GMT -4
I'm really deep into political and social science right now. NASA is no longer on my front burner. Forgive me for not remembering the name of every nut and bolt, but I want to add some more useless initials beside my name. So basically, you know nothing about everything, and therefore, are always right.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 6:40:39 GMT -4
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 20, 2006 6:40:39 GMT -4
Trouble is that this argument is just as as invaild as any other he might come up with.
All it proves is that the Hubble was placed at the highest point CURRENTLY servicable by manned space fiight. We already know the Shuttle has a range limit and that the Shuttle limit is not vaild as a limitation to Apollo since they were vastly different mission profiles. I doubt that even with the CEV's they would put such a thing any higher, it's no point to doing so, it's tucked out of the way, yet reachable if required for service etc.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 6:56:31 GMT -4
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 20, 2006 6:56:31 GMT -4
Moon Man, if you have no time to do the most basic research for your argments, then stop wasting time by presenting them.
This is what I do not understand about many HBs. Stargazer was the same. He often claimed to have no time to do the research needed to suport his arguments. I would think most people would want to present an argument with as convincing a basis as possible. Admitting to having no time to do even the slightest research simply undermines the argument.
If you wish to present an argument about the capability of hardware, you need to have some research under your belt about the hardware in question. Simply knowing what it is called is usually a good first step!
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 9:09:04 GMT -4
Post by sts60 on Apr 20, 2006 9:09:04 GMT -4
But the people with "no time" for research to back up their claims are so often the ones who have plenty of time to churn out dozens of new claims. Funny how that works
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 9:17:20 GMT -4
Post by BertL on Apr 20, 2006 9:17:20 GMT -4
Troll. Definetly.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 10:53:19 GMT -4
Post by tofu on Apr 20, 2006 10:53:19 GMT -4
I'm really deep into political and social science right now. NASA is no longer on my front burner. Wait, don't tell me, let me guess... The CIA made remote controlled planes fly into the WTC, which was already rigged with explosives. We invaded Afghanistan so that we could build a pipeline through the country. George Bush blew up the New Orleans levies. am I pretty close? Look the bottom line is, you're not a very smart person. And no, that's not a personal attack. That is an established fact. Take a look at the quotes on the moonman tribute. For a while you thought you could play your little game around here, but you got royally spanked by people who do know every nut and bolt of apollo (not me, the smart people). You were beaten down by mountains of facts. So now you've moved on to an easier venue. It's easy to peddle your stupidity on "political and social sciences" because the facts aren't always as cut and dry as they are on apollo. So have fun, but always remember this: just because you've chosen an easier place to troll, that doesn't change the fact that your thought processes are and will always be faulty. You are just physically incapable of figuring things out for yourself. So whatever it is that you are saying on some other forum about "political and social sciences" you are as wrong there as you were here. It might be easier for you to hide it there, but you're still wrong.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 11:01:48 GMT -4
Post by twinstead on Apr 20, 2006 11:01:48 GMT -4
So, what we are saying is moon man is indeed a useful idiot in every way imaginable?
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 20:13:03 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 20, 2006 20:13:03 GMT -4
Not knowing the name of "every nut and bolt" isn't a problem. Not understanding even the most basic physical principles before making claims - that's a problem. Not knowing the most major parts before making claims - that's a problem. Churning out a stream of wild claims without doing the slightest research - that's a problem. Ignoring the information that other people provide for you - that's a problem. Mind you, it's not a problem for us. You make me lol. I enjoy reading your comebacks.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 20:13:58 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 20, 2006 20:13:58 GMT -4
I'm really deep into political and social science right now. NASA is no longer on my front burner. Forgive me for not remembering the name of every nut and bolt, but I want to add some more useless initials beside my name. So basically, you know nothing about everything, and therefore, are always right. We're all ignorant on different levels and on different subjects.
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 20, 2006 20:15:31 GMT -4
Post by Moon Man on Apr 20, 2006 20:15:31 GMT -4
Moon Man, if you have no time to do the most basic research for your argments, then stop wasting time by presenting them. This is what I do not understand about many HBs. Stargazer was the same. He often claimed to have no time to do the research needed to suport his arguments. I would think most people would want to present an argument with as convincing a basis as possible. Admitting to having no time to do even the slightest research simply undermines the argument. If you wish to present an argument about the capability of hardware, you need to have some research under your belt about the hardware in question. Simply knowing what it is called is usually a good first step! I had all kinds of time before Christmas and some prick took out my message board only computer. I refuse to go on boards with my other puters, since I need them for business, and now I only post from the YOUniversity.
|
|