|
Post by grashtel on Oct 2, 2010 17:08:42 GMT -4
Probably some nonsense about the Earth only being 6,000 years old. Wow, I was raised by Young Earth Creationists and they didn't make that claim. Oh? What claim did they make? I had thought that the belief that Earth was only a few thousand years old was pretty much the definition of a young earth creationist.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 21, 2010 19:19:09 GMT -4
His latest post on Icke is a cracker. Any chance of a link to it?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 14, 2010 20:19:12 GMT -4
Regarding 'do your own homework' The most powerful resource I have is a search engine. Sometimes it does not readily yield the answer I seek. Perhaps the info is specialist and hard to extract - like are the Moon rocks covered in zap pits. Simple question, you'd think you'd get a definitive answer in minutes. I still have not found one, though 'covered' does seem to cover it You do know that there are a variety of specialised search engines available which are often better for answering specialised questions than the general ones don't you? For example inputting "zap pits apollo samples" in Google Scholar produces these hits several of which seem like they may have the answer to your question of whether the Apollo samples are completely covered in zap pits or just have them on some surfaces, though as these are academic papers don't expect them to be fun or easy to read and you may have to pay to get access to them (though you might well be able to get them through a library or by other means for less or even free). Also a Gillianren said there are various offline resources such as libraries and universities which while they may take some effort to access have much better resources than you are likely to find online. For instance the easiest way to answer your question about the distribution of the zap pits on the surface of Apollo samples may be to simply ask someone who has studded them.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 11, 2010 9:05:14 GMT -4
Sorry, both of those were already brought up and the "great Fetzer" declared them both invalid. Did he give any particular reason or was it just from the voices in his and/or Jack's head?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 10, 2010 12:40:18 GMT -4
Rodin, can you please tell the board why you believe NASA had to fake the Moon landings? Apparently the root cause for it being faked was Teh Ebil Jooz who have secretly controlled the USA and Russia/USSR since the early 20th century who due to their evil and jewishness needed to fake Apollo, 911, global warming, and probably a whole bunch of other stuff as well, at least if you happen to live in Rodin's particular version of reality anyway.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 10, 2010 11:44:46 GMT -4
Well I suggest that you complain to the admin of that forum then rather than commenting on it over here and dragging the thread off topic.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 10, 2010 4:07:50 GMT -4
This would have to be one of the most complicated murders ever devised, almost as complex as killing Jack Ruby by giving him cancer.... Isn't it obvious? Teh ebil Jooz had ninja rabbis secretly steering both vehicles and one in riding with Patton ready to slam his head forward into the partition during the crash but didn't quite do it right only leaving him paralysed so they then had to replace his doctor with another ninja rabbi who had been surgically modified to look identical to the original one and then actually killed Patton.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Aug 22, 2010 21:46:21 GMT -4
Maybe I should clarify myself. I'm talking about a telescope that could be bought (preferably built on a good budget) and can see the landing sites from someone's back yard. Only thing is, that kind of telescopic power is impossible right now Maybe we should use this thread as a brainstorm of ideas on how to build such a telescope? You're gonna need a rather large backyard for that. The smallest telescope that can spot the Apollo landing sites (ie just barely see that there is something there different from the surroundings) from Earth needs a primary optic in the order of 200 meters (600 feet for Americans) in diameter and in order to see any kind of detail would need to be upwards of a kilometre (two thirds of a mile) in diameter. The largest optical telescope in existence is the Gran Telescopio Canarias which is only 10.4 meters in diameter. The largest optical telescope that has actual work going on to wards its construction at the moment is the Thirty Meter Telescope (I'll leave you to guess just how big its diameter is) which is slated to be completed sometime in 2018 at a cost of almost a billion dollars. And the largest one that has had serious design studies was the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope that in its original largest form would have been 100 meters in diameter.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 28, 2010 11:53:08 GMT -4
I'm not sure they would do much better, those Hasselblads took good pictures. A more spectacular question is going back to Hadley with modern climbing gear.IIRC the Apollo photos were equivalent to something like 32 megapixels, which is only just being matched by even very high end digital cameras (which I am uncertain if would have enough radiation tolerance to be chosen to be taken on a trip to the Moon).
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 27, 2010 10:31:54 GMT -4
An even better question, I think, is how a video on the topic of the audio level in someone else's video is even conceivably relevant to the "question" of a supposed Apollo hoax. I mean, isn't this getting pretty far off on a tangent? The volume of the Apollo astronauts voices didn't change no matter how far they were from the camera so it was obviously all a hoax (if you happen to either be Jarrah or haven't been taking your medication).
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 26, 2010 18:51:21 GMT -4
The thing is, are NASA actually going to go out on a limb here and endeavour as part of the next missions to shut HBs up? ie. will they actually land next door to the old gear? And what steps do you think they will take (if any?)to completely shut people up that they are actually on the Moon? You are assuming that NASA gives a damn about the HBs, the serious ones don't make up a large enough portion of the population to matter to them (the various oft quoted survey results showing a large portion are pretty much meaningless without additional information, eg how the survey was conducted and what exactly how the question was worded). OTOH NASA are very likely to revisit at least one of the old landing sites in order to study the how the materials were effected by long term exposure to the lunar environment.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 17, 2010 21:57:45 GMT -4
I'd never heard that claim before, though it's possible I missed it, but more importantly it doesn't make sense. It's just another example of moving the goal posts. The only way to make ballistic objects on (above) the earth mimic motion in lunar gravity is to change the film speed by a ratio of sqrt(6). Any other ratio simply wouldn't work. So once you've done that, what good are wire supports? Applying forces to objects that are supposed to be in ballistic motion will simply make them move non-ballistically. And applying forces to some supposedly ballistic objects but not others will make them move differently when they should be moving the same. The wires are obviously what is being used for the bits where speeding up the film would make it look wrong due to the astronauts moving their arms or other parts ridiculous fast. The slight problems of transitioning between the two modes seamlessly in the extremely long shots produced by the Apollo missions and the situations where you have both ballistic objects and astronauts moving in the wrong way are simply handwaved away.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 13, 2010 19:39:50 GMT -4
Come on guy, just register as NASTA so we will know who you are. You won't be banned here just because you were banned at BAUT. Although if history is any precedent, and your prior registrations suggest it is, you will eventually be banned for carrying on the same shenanigans as you pulled at BAUT. I'd love to be shown to be wrong. Not that NASTA has been banned at BAUT (yet), he has just got a suspension.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 11, 2010 4:18:42 GMT -4
This should be in the HB contradictions thread if it isn't already. The photographs are "too good", and yet at the same time they are flawed and show signs of forgery. I swear one of these days I will get around to writing up a stock post about the quality of the Apollo photos with every single freaking character, including the bloody spaces, linking to a different not so good Apollo photo.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jun 22, 2010 22:34:41 GMT -4
Okay, boys and girls, your training is complete. Now, lets welcome back our favourite debater - MOONMAN! ...I'm not sure if that is funny or not. I think that sticking Moonman and Ultima together in room would have very interesting and amusing results, quite possibly including cranial detonation.
|
|