|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 26, 2006 10:43:33 GMT -4
If the video of Apollo 12 was a prerecorded fake, when Al Bean burned out the TV camera why didn't the "director" simply say, "cut!" stop the shoot, bring in another camera and continue shooting?
Millions of people who had stayed up all night to see the Apollo 12 Moonwalks (including me!) wouldn't have been disappointed and NASA would have spared themselves another (albeit minor) black eye.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 8, 2006 22:52:39 GMT -4
I think that most of the arguments are laughable. NASA had access to the greatest expertise in Engineering, Photography, Geology, Telemetry, Astronomy and other things, and yet according to the HP's all these experts missed things that are so obvious that laymen can see through them. This is why some use the "Whistleblower" tactic of course. Though this still works on the princple that the Layman can see things the experts can't. In the end, when a Layman and an expert disagree in something, my money is generally on the expert. My first memories of the manned space program begin with John Glenn and Friendship 7, and I followed Apollo with a passion that burned with the fire of a thousand suns. I can attest that, with the exception of a very few people who were generally regarded as kooks, NOBODY doubted the reality of Apollo. A lot of people derided it as a waste of money that could have been "better spent feeding the poor" (how I remember the heated arguments I had with my dear departed brother); and a lot more noted that "we hadn't had all this rain before them fellers started walking on the Moon"; but their doubts were always based on the fact that Apollo had actually taken place. ALL of the evidence that the HBs tout was available for review back in the 70's, and rest assured, it was pored over by expert and layman alike. So what did they miss that seems so obvious to the Hoax Believer today?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 8, 2006 14:11:59 GMT -4
I've been lurking here a long time, and I've finally been prompted to register and post. Right now, I'm watching on NASA TV the Shuttle astronauts performing an EVA, specifically a helmet cam view of an astronaut performing repairs on the Space Station. Then it suddenly hit me - he's using the same kind of gloves that the HBs say were impossible to use to manipulate a Hasselblad camera. So the Hoax Believers believe that one can construct a multi-tonne space station, make numerous repairs on the Hubble Space Telescope, and perform patch jobs on the Space Shuttle with these gloves, but operating a 'blad is right out. Anyway, I'm glad to finally join you guys, and hope to add a little to the discussions.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 15:23:55 GMT -4
It's also interesting that in discussing the "hoax", a lot of HBs want to take evidence for Apollo off the table at the start:
It's also worth pointing out that a large part of Apollo was Americans bumming about their wonderful technology. As the isssue in question is whether NASA landed men on the moon, any claims for that technology are inadmissable because it is from one of the defendants.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 14:32:45 GMT -4
greig's Anti-American slam having nothing to do with the question of Apollo, noted.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 13:09:16 GMT -4
The source is you. You asked a question of which the answer of which is contained in previous posts of the thread you posted to. When I indicated this to you, you replied, "No I haven't (read the thread) and have no intention of doing so." Indicating that you apparently don't have the intellectual curiosity to study a topic before you comment on it. If all of your arguments are sourced in this sort of ignorance, I'm afraid you won't have a good time here. So you can't provide a valid source to back up your argument, fine. I didn't think you would If you belueve I am going to wade through screeds of nonsense, then you are quite wrong. This says a lot about your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:58:23 GMT -4
This says a lot about your arguments. Please back up your argument from a reliable source. The source is you. You asked a question of which the answer of which is contained in previous posts of the thread you posted to. When I indicated this to you, you replied, "No I haven't (read the thread) and have no intention of doing so." Indicating that you apparently don't have the intellectual curiosity to study a topic before you comment on it. If all of your arguments are sourced in this sort of ignorance, I'm afraid you won't have a good time here.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:47:43 GMT -4
Haven't you read this thread? No I haven't and have no intention of doing so. This says a lot about your arguments.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 12:43:57 GMT -4
No-one is denying the luck element in Apollo, but they weren't just shooting people off into space and hoping for the best. They had contingencies just in case to reduce the damage done by solar events. That's fascinating, what were they ? Haven't you read this thread?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 11, 2006 11:49:03 GMT -4
[Maxwell Smart voice] Oh, the old "Accuse the administration of malfeasance so I can leave in a huff" trick, eh? [/Maxwell Smart Voice]
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 1, 2006 13:21:39 GMT -4
Have you noticed that we have three HBs here with the same posting pattern:
Exactly one hit and run post per day with no or almost no discussion of answers to their previous posts?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 1, 2006 13:16:39 GMT -4
I believe you are confusing a hydrogen explosion with a H-bomb implosion. Easy mistake. Are you talking to yourself? Because every one of us knows the difference between a chemical and a nuclear explosion.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 31, 2006 15:06:21 GMT -4
Psst. Comet Halley had cyanide in its tail, too.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 31, 2006 15:02:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 26, 2006 16:59:28 GMT -4
Vacuum doesn't bother feathers. The "feather drop" is a common physics experiment, and I have seen it performed in college physics 101. A feather and a metal washer is placed in a long acrylic cylinder and turned over. Washer beats feather to bottom.
A hose is attached and the air is evacuated. Cylinder is again overturned. Feather and washer hit bottom at the same time. Feather shows no visible effect from vacuum exposure. I repeat, vacuum doesn't bother feathers.
: Edited to change idiot typo.
|
|