|
Post by RAF on Nov 13, 2005 13:54:28 GMT -4
I figure he should at least be given an opportunity to be constructive. Lets see...just about the 1st thing that MM did when he got here was state the "reason" for his BAUT banning. His version is (shall we say) not representative of the actual truth. Soon after that he started calling everyone Liars. I don't think that MM wants to be constructive. And there's really nothing any of us can do about that.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Oct 3, 2005 11:35:58 GMT -4
NOTE: The early Apollo flights were launched into a low Earth parking orbit of 100 nm where the spacecraft stayed for 1.5 orbits before restarting the Saturn S-IVB engine to inject the spacecraft into a trajectory bound of the Moon. Beginning with Apollo 15, the parking orbit was lowered to 90 nm. This was one of the changes made to accommodate the heavier payload of the ‘J-missions’. Why do I come here? For "stuff" like this. It's something I should have known (being the Apollo phile that I am) yet did not know... Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 2, 2005 15:40:15 GMT -4
And if he is such a liar, fraud and charlatan... There is no "if" about it...it is a proven FACT!!A wicked sense of humor?? Seriously, is that really your argument...that because google advertizes Bart's "movie" on this site that there must be "something" to it?? That could possibily be the weakest "pro-Bart" argument that I've ever heard...and I've heard a lot of them.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 3, 2005 7:30:29 GMT -4
See, that presents a problem. You see these "anomalies", I don't. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that these supposed "anomalies" actually exist. I never said otherwise, so please don't assume that I did. No "assumption" involved, for in your very next sentence you say... Which was exactly my "point". You see "anomalies" where none exist. You feel that there is a "need" for alternative explanations to "anomalies", yet you haven't demonstrated with ANY evidence that there are any anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 2, 2005 13:35:26 GMT -4
...it is anomalous objects that I have requested alternative explanations for... See, that presents a problem. You see these "anomalies", I don't. It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that these supposed "anomalies" actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Aug 1, 2005 12:16:07 GMT -4
...I see evidence to support the hoax...snip...I want to see if I can be proven wrong... It seems that a common characteristic of most "conspiracy theories" is this "backwards idea" that they must be proven wrong. As I am so fond of saying... that's not how science "works". "modified" to add...of course it doesn't "hurt" when it can be shown that these "unusual theories" are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 31, 2005 8:13:39 GMT -4
Oh come on... You brought up government lying as a justification for your views. You implied "always" here... What we're still waiting for is for you to explain why. If I was required to answer this is one sentence, I would say Because in the second half of my life, I have learned that the government of the United States is prepared to lie to me. The government is prepared to lie... so what. There is a great "LEAP" between that and saying that they HAVE lied about something "specific". I can see why you would want to ignore that fact, but posting in that manner makes your reasoning look sillier, and sillier...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 27, 2005 19:49:31 GMT -4
Ah yes...that was the word that was on the tip of my tongue, yet did not make it to the page. And speaking of electrostatic charges, this page describes "levitating Moon dust". Another example of differences in dust behavior between the Earth and the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 27, 2005 15:48:08 GMT -4
Either dust behaves as dust, or it doesn't. The Moon is not the Earth. Conditions are different, ie. the Moon lacks an amosphere. Dust simply does not behave in the same manner as it does on the Earth.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 7, 2005 10:10:31 GMT -4
I have read them on a site on the net. Care to share a link to that site???
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 6, 2005 10:27:52 GMT -4
Please explain to me what is it that you are saying against Colby. Well, Jay has already said it...and I agree with his assesment.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 6, 2005 10:25:29 GMT -4
I also noticed that one of those "reviewers" had a very familiar name... Mary Morelli. That post was one of the pieces of evidence that gave Mary away. It also shows that these "researchers" have no qualms about using others unsubstantiated conclusions "as if" they had actually done some form of actual research.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 6, 2005 9:34:50 GMT -4
Didn't each Apollo mission have a flag that ws deployed alone? I don't quite understand what you are asking here. What controversy?? After reading his page, it's obvious that Colby doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. Not controversial at all... I just visited his "feedback" page and noticed that only positive reviews were listed. I must assume that there HAVE been negative reviews. Why does he not include those also? I also noticed that one of those "reviewers" had a very familiar name... Mary Morelli.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 6, 2005 7:07:26 GMT -4
This is what Colby has to say: "Every Apollo mission supposedly took a flag to the Moon, so why did Apollo 17 take the flag of the wall? Very simple, really...They took it to symbolize the accomplishment of the objectives of the Apollo program. It had "flown" in mission control for all the Apollo missions. What better final resting place than on the surface of the Moon. I fail to understand why Mr. Colby would have such a "problem" with this. This flag "business" is certainly not any kind of evidence that the landings didn't happen. It would be "like" saying that Apollo 11's LM was named Eagle...and as everyone knows, Eagles fly through atmosphere. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, naming the LM "Eagle" means that the landings didn't happen. I know that analogy doesn't really compare...but to my ears, it's the same kind of nonsense. Using this "flag arguement" as if it were some kind of proof of a hoax is laughable.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 6, 2005 4:48:36 GMT -4
...and if I might add to that (just a bit , it's natural that we find conditions on the Moon "slightly" confusing. The Moon is not the Earth. On the Earth, when we look at distant mountains, they "look" far away because we are looking through the atmospheric haze. Not so for the Moon. With no atmosphere, (and no recognizable "land marks" to judge by, ie phone poles), mountains that are a considerable distance away look as if you could reach out and touch them.
|
|