|
Post by AtomicDog on Jun 29, 2007 8:45:34 GMT -4
Funny how Rocky insists that NASA used a technique (washed and sifted sand) that was never used before and has not been used since in the history of cinematography.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 6, 2007 10:26:32 GMT -4
You're right. On reflection, "belittled" would be a better choice of words to describe the HB's actions.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 22:58:01 GMT -4
I know how you feel. I've had my personal childhood memories of Apollo 11 trashed by a HB too, on another forum.
The most important event of one's young life, defiled for a cheap debating point.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 17:17:22 GMT -4
He must. We're an experiment to him.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 16:08:03 GMT -4
I'm sorry but if you don't have a PhD in meteorology we cannot accept what you say. Since that seems to be the standard you apply to the Apollo believers so it’s only fair that you meet the same standards. No, I can see the weather forecast changing from one hour to the next on the BBC. website It isn't the same thing as understanding radiation on the moon or the Van Allen belts. Do you not understand that the map you were looking at was not a forecast map? Forecasts were never mentioned in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 15:05:08 GMT -4
In my opinion it doesn't match very well at all. Not only that, weather changes very quickly and there is no correlation with time. Where I live weather forcasts are rarely correct even a few hours ahead. because it changes so often.
It wasn't a weather forecast, it was a weather record. The map was a record of precipitation that day, not a prediction.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 14:05:04 GMT -4
You dismiss it out of hand without any reason. It is no wonder that you don't want to discuss it. Well that's the problem isn't it. ? You either didn't read or understand what I wrote. I thought you weren't coming back to this thread.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 13:51:19 GMT -4
Fingers stuck in ears and saying, "Nyaa, nyaa! I'm not listening to you!", noted.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 20, 2006 16:21:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 8, 2006 23:26:44 GMT -4
Why are you HBs so fixated with stars? Stars in space (not astronomy) photos is pure Hollywood. I challenge you to find just one astronomer who expects to find stars in a space photo.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 1, 2006 9:32:21 GMT -4
Turbonium seems to be able to take a snippet of the most blurred crappy distorted video,Rorschaching it to create his own reality around it, and use that snippet as the final proof of a hoax, ignoring all of the crystal clear video, photos, samples and other evidence of Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 21, 2006 15:50:49 GMT -4
the Clavius photo is very suspicious. It shows a picture of the Earth just peeping over the horizon, yet it couldn’t have been taken from the lunar surface at any of the landing sites because the Earth would have been at a higher angle in the sky. But this photo can’t have been taken from lunar orbit either because it shows too much detail of the ground. You're kidding, right? You're talking about the earthrise photo on the Clavius homepage? too much detail?AS11-44-6549 images.ksc.nasa.gov/photos/1969/medium/AS11-44-6549.jpg Robert, tell me again why it cannot be an orbital photo.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 21, 2006 9:33:38 GMT -4
Why is it that HBs constantly call upon technology that didn't exist or wouldn't be perfected for decades to support the hoax?
Photoshop, bluescreen, digital erasing of video; do people think this stuff was always around?
|
|
|
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 AtomicDog on Mar 23, 2007 6:34:23 GMT -4
|
|