|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Mar 29, 2007 8:11:41 GMT -4
All the directors of the company I work for are freemasons ... does that mean I am unconciously assisting them in secretly perpetrating some kind of nefarious scheme?
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Mar 29, 2007 8:25:12 GMT -4
The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is a VTOL. The JSF F-35 Lighting II is a STOVL. What do you prefer apples or oranges? First you claim that nobody has tried to make anything better (which implies different in some way) than the Harrier, then when show that someone is making something that might be better, you say they can't be compared because it is different. Make up your mind.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 29, 2007 8:30:20 GMT -4
Besides, the F-35B can do vertical takeoff: it's just that the USMC usually prefers short takeoffs in their flight profiles.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Mar 29, 2007 8:31:32 GMT -4
First off, Heavenlybody, when do you plan to address the issue I posed to you? Do you ignore it because it makes your belief look bad? Now, onward... We actually prefer the Harrier it is a great aircraft, with however a poor safety record. You have yet to demonstrate that the Harrier has a poor safety record. Not all the dust was blown away. In fact, in looking at photos of this, it seems that only under the engine bell itself was it totally blown away. Thus, the dust actually piled up around the LM (not LEM. I point this out to make sure you at least have the terminology correct). Demonstrate the inconsistencies. What are you talking about? How many times must this be told to you: We. Don't. Care. More so, this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Apollo took place as history says it did. This is a poor attempt by you to validate your position.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Mar 29, 2007 9:27:55 GMT -4
LO, The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is a VTOL. The JSF F-35 Lighting II is a STOVL.Which, just like the Harrier, can in some configurations take off vertically. It took me about 15 seconds of typing "F-35 vertical take off" into a search engine to find a nice little video of just that. What do you prefer apples or oranges?I like both, but it's crow on the menu for you. BTW We actually prefer the Harrier it is a great aircraft, with however a poor safety record.So it's no longer "unusable" - you've contradicted your initial claim. But, of course, you have yet to back up your claim of "poor safety record". You just keep repeating it. In any case, you have failed to back up your claims, or answer any of the questions I posed for you back in reply 667. As they were questions that had been put to you repeatedly, and you have ignored them and failed to back up your claims - as I said then, you are officially in my book a troll: You're completely ignorant about the subjects under discussion, you refuse or are incapable of either learning anything or admitting you're wrong about anything, and I'm through wasting time trying to teach you. Bye, troll.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 29, 2007 9:34:11 GMT -4
What do you prefer apples or oranges?
Handwaving. Those aircraft share principles of operation that are pertinent to this discussion and to your claims. If you believe their differences undermine the rebuttal, it's your job to show where those differences are material and not merely superficial.
We actually prefer the Harrier it is a great aircraft, with however a poor safety record.
You have given no evidence that the Harrier has a poor safety record. Since all aircraft types experience crashes for various reasons over the type's service lifetime, citing individual examples of crashes without any statistical or causal basis does not show a poor safety record.
Don't you think talking about DC10s & 747s is a bit pointless and has nothing what so ever to do with Project Apollo either?
It is far more pertinent than Freemasonry.
You raised the issue of how to measure aircraft safety when you claimed inappropriately that the Harrier had a poor safety record. It is not inappropriate therefore to discuss other aircraft types and how their safety records were reckoned and how the public perceived them.
Kindly stop trying to moderate the discussion and answer the questions that have been put to you. If you are not going to pursue the topics of discussion that you introduced, you have no business attempting to control what others choose to discuss in your absence.
Please give the post/reply number where you addressed the different density, distance and scacterers for your experiment.
No.
I've explained myself to you sufficiently on that point in a number of posts. I have explained at great length on numerous occasions how to control for all effects but radiant heat transfer in an experiment. You have no excuse not to have read them. Kindly stop stalling and either immediately support your LM heat-transfer claim scientifically or immediately withdraw it.
If the lunare surface dust was blown away by the LEM how could there be a foot print at the bottom of the ladder?
Why are you changing subjects?
We do not claim the engine blew away all the dust. What is your evidence that all the dust was removed, such that no footprints would be possible?
Why do the pictures from the Surveyor mission show the surface to be rocky and are inconsistent with all of the Apollo Photos.
Begging the question. Show your evidence that the Surveyor photographs are inconsistent with Apollo photos and be prepared with photographic analysis.
Why do the photos of the imprint left by the legs of the Surveyor Modules taken on Apollo Mission differ from the photos taken by the Surveyor probe itself?
Please show the photos in question. And why are you changing subjects again?
Since you have begun and abandoned several lines of inquiry, why should anyone expect that answering your unfounded questions on these points will result in anything but a new change of subject? Do you plan to carry any line of questioning to a conclusion? Or are you going to continue to evade responsibility for your claims?
C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander...
Copied from Hoagland and Bill Cooper, factually wrong (C. Fred Kleinknecht never worked for NASA, much less was its administrator), and irrelevant.
Since you can't even get the publicly-available information right about either Freemasonry or NASA, what makes you think you're any kind of credible authority on what they do in secret?
Do any of you know how many other Project Apollo personnel were Freemasons?
Irrelevant.
No number of persons affiliated with both Freemasonry and Apollo substantiates anything more than a coincidental connection between them, and provides no evidence that Apollo was faked by the Masons or by anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 29, 2007 10:02:23 GMT -4
Please give the post/reply number where you addressed the different density, distance and scacterers for your experiment.No. I've explained myself to you sufficiently on that point in a number of posts. I'll just reinforce this point. Heavenlybody, stop trying to drag this conversation round in circles. More than one person here has explained the relevant principles to you. If you don't understand them by now then tough, frankly. But you don't want to understand them. You just want to present the impression that you're showing someone to be in error. Since you don't understand enough about the science involved to recognise an error anyway we'll ignore your attempts.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 29, 2007 10:42:07 GMT -4
The Hawker Siddeley Harrier is a VTOL. The JSF F-35 Lighting II is a STOVL. What do you prefer apples or oranges? Actually, the Harrier is frequently described as a STOVL aircraft too, because that is the way it is usually operated. Vertical take-offs are only possible at low payload or fuel weights, short take-offs are the norm. At the end of an operational mission the weight is normally low enough for a vertical landing, which is the preferred, safer, option for a shipboard landing. This will also be true of the F-35B when it is used operationally, the two aircraft have equivalent capabilities in this respect. What else don't you know anything about, heavenlybody?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 29, 2007 17:41:11 GMT -4
So, wait. Is the Methodist Church a conspiracy, too? I mean, my grandfather was a Methodist minister and a Freemason. Surely, that means something just as much as Apollo engineers being Freemasons does.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 29, 2007 17:54:18 GMT -4
Many, if not most of the early LDS (Mormon) leaders were also Freemasons. I guess heavenlybody will have to decide which was the more evil part of their character - the Mormon part or the Freemason part.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 29, 2007 18:39:52 GMT -4
So, wait. Is the Methodist Church a conspiracy, too? Must be: they keep the "Method" pretty close to their chest...
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 29, 2007 21:30:56 GMT -4
So, wait. Is the Methodist Church a conspiracy, too? I mean, my grandfather was a Methodist minister and a Freemason.My father is a 33rd Degree Mason and a United Methodist. I confess--we're all in on the conspiracy!
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Mar 29, 2007 21:38:10 GMT -4
Must be: they keep the "Method" pretty close to their chest... Actually, "Methodist" was originally a derogatory term. From a Wikipedia article: [edit: quoting]
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Apr 1, 2007 17:03:08 GMT -4
So....how many days/weeks until HB returns to make incorrect claims and evade questions?
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Apr 11, 2007 8:48:55 GMT -4
So....how many days/weeks until HB returns to make incorrect claims and evade questions? As soon as his new personality "Proselenean"* is banned for making claims and evading questions over at the BadAstronomy-forum. *while I can't prove it, the use of "we" and the fixation on Jay are a giveaway
|
|