|
Post by RAF on Jun 5, 2005 8:27:32 GMT -4
Cernan - "The flag that we took to deploy was the one that had hung on the wall of the Mission Control Center during all the landing missions. And we also had another flag, which we brought back to replace the one that we deployed at Taurus-Littrow." See NASA photo S73-38346 which shows Gene and Jack persenting [sic] the replacement flag to Gene Kranz in the MOCR in December 1973. [Johnny Carson voice]I did not know that.[/Johnny Carson voice] So it wasn't a "replica" flag, it was a "replacement" flag. If I'm reading this correctly, the "replacement" flag didn't go to the Moon. Thanks for the link, and welcome to the board! edited to add... But that sounds like they brought (the replacement flag) back from the Moon. I'm a bit confused.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 4, 2005 16:58:40 GMT -4
Do you understand why tape was used, and why these light "blankets" had to be precut? You have now had two professional engineers with considerable experience in spaceflight explain this to you. Those explanations are appreciated...by me. The recent posts concerning the how/why/what of the landers "coverings" are like candy to me...I just eat them up. Yeah, you've guessed it...I'm a "knowledge junkie" especially when the subject is the Apollo missions.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 4, 2005 16:37:38 GMT -4
You know I've seen some "howlers" when it comes to hoax web pages, but this Apollo reality page is just plain dopey.
An example...
"Mr. Reality" responds with...
Right...NASA goes to all the trouble to "fake" the Moon landings, then stupidly forgets that they left the flag on the Moon. Perhaps the caption should have read replica of the flag so as to not confuse "whomever" put that page together.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 4, 2005 14:48:49 GMT -4
What I meant by NASA taking the step to answer hoax theories is the things that they haven't directly said to explain certain issues. If they have done so in a conclusive way, there wouldn't be such claims. emphasis mine... That's a load of bull. I don't know how many times I've seen it explained (for instance) why there are no stars in the images. Has that stopped the HB'ers from using the "no stars" claim as "evidence" of "fakery"?? HELL NO. NASA has better things to do than explain facts to people who won't listen. And no amount of "explaination" will change the mind of a "die hard" hoax believer...as evidenced on this and other boards.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 4, 2005 14:32:00 GMT -4
I quoted Jack since he is an experienced photographer as demonstrated in the site. Does that make him an expert in photo interpretation? Hardly.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 7, 2005 14:15:05 GMT -4
In fact you are only big idiots and you never went to the moon and to Mars with your useless theories. The first thing I thought about when I read this (and I'm in a weird mood today) was Plan 9 from Outer Space...
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 5, 2005 16:56:32 GMT -4
...and explain why I say craps... I have no explanation for your behavior... ...and I (also) have no explanation as to why you would post crap like this... edited to add...and you continue to mis-spell Jay's user-name....that's just RUDE...but not unexpected.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 5, 2005 15:01:45 GMT -4
Ya know, I'm starting to get the impression that unknown is "purposefully" trying to get himself banned before Jay's deadline.
That's in about 3 hours, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 5, 2005 14:50:25 GMT -4
I conduct the game, not you. I see you have a sense of humor. This has been explained to you. Why do you continue to post nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 5, 2005 10:37:14 GMT -4
You have 24 hours. Put up or shut up. Somehow, I picture Jay standing in the middle of main street of an old western town. Six shooters at the ready...and wearing the white cowboy hat, of course.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Jun 4, 2005 10:53:05 GMT -4
Hey, JayUtah...snip...Nobody in 1969 (and perhaps even today) could pilot that nice old crock (Lunar Module) thrusted from the bottom driving it being seated inside. If you don't understand this simple thing, you are a big idiot and your mathematics has distroyed your little brain. Well, that was an intelligent response... I have no tolerance for "name callers", unknown. If you can't carry on a rational discussion, then just GO AWAY. Then again...keep it up, and you could have the "honor" of being the first person banned on this "new" board.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 19, 2008 13:25:03 GMT -4
Indeed. He certainly made a monumental contribution to Science Fiction. And science fact as well. ...and in his later years, a mixture of the 2. Sigh...the last of the "Big Three" is gone.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 11, 2008 15:42:04 GMT -4
Hmmm...one idea at a time... I think you may be onto something!!
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 11, 2008 15:20:16 GMT -4
Maybe you could give a little more detail to some of your claims. Given the number of threads that Altair has started lately, do we really need him to go into more detail?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Mar 13, 2008 11:38:59 GMT -4
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the "saucer shape" is simply not a viable alternative to the traditional aircraft wing?It should be noted that the books in question are more a discussion of alleged anti-gravity technology than the supposed aerodynamic merits or pitfalls of a saucer-shaped airfoil. Noted...thanks. I have a problem with conventional scientific understanding and it's methodology. It's not enough to say "I disagree". You must be able to provide convincing evidence as to why you disagree. ...and from what I've read, you haven't even attempted to do that.
|
|