|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 24, 2010 12:40:24 GMT -4
Don't forget the screw holes and a hammerfore. I'll bite, what’s a hammerfore?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 16, 2010 21:30:43 GMT -4
Ask him, what is the dynamic range of Kodachrome. Then ask him what is the dynamic range of Ektachrome, which is the type of film that was actually used on Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Dec 8, 2010 23:56:41 GMT -4
Not to mention the billowing dust clouds.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 26, 2010 19:05:51 GMT -4
I hope the Rifftrax guys are paying attention.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 23, 2010 20:33:37 GMT -4
...How come no filmmaker has ever declared the Apollo photos, film or video a fake? These people perpetrate hoaxes for a living. They can spot a hoax a mile away. Forget Stanley Kubrick. Why doesn't George Lucas cry foul?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 20, 2010 9:25:02 GMT -4
I see that Duane is claiming that a pictures from a geosynchronous satellite that covers the Western Hemisphere were used to fake Apollo photos of Earth that showed Africa and Australia. Of for the love of God. He's being banging his drums with his head again. He really does need to give up and find himself a new hobby. One he is actually good at. Do you have a link? I can't do links from my phone. Go to page 44 of the Fetzer/Burton thread on the Education Forum.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 19, 2010 23:19:39 GMT -4
I see that Duane is claiming that a pictures from a geosynchronous satellite that covers the Western Hemisphere were used to fake Apollo photos of Earth that showed Africa and Australia.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 18, 2010 21:04:23 GMT -4
The funny thing is, if Jarrah claimed that a manned Apollo could, from low Earth Orbit, be boosted to 25,000 mph, then according to orbital dynamics, he is admitting that a manned Apollo can be flow out to lunar distances. He essentially agrued that Apollo lunar missions were, in fact, done! I like the concept that 25000 mph is so fast that no one can spot it. In terms of speed, while fast, it's still a tortoise in the grand scheme of things. It was worse than that. It was a 25,000 MPH Polar Orbit. His definition of a Polar Orbit? One describing a tight circle around the North Pole, over, say, 80 degrees north. He needed this kind of orbit so that the CSM stack could remain in the perpetual sunshine of the northern polar summer and unobserved from the ground. Another example of how a HB will make up his own physics to prop up the idea that Apollo was hoaxed.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 12, 2010 21:11:24 GMT -4
Could someone ask James Fetzer why would anyone record sound (picking up the sounds of a crashing light) on a set that is supposed to represent the airless Lunar surface?
Recording sound is an extra production cost, and the sound wouldn't be used anyway, considering that Armstrong's speech would have been a DUBBED-IN RADIO TRANSMISSION!
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 12, 2010 20:53:21 GMT -4
Why didn't the LM have seats?
They were removed, ostensibly, to save weight. But if the LM was a phony, what did NASA care about excess weight?
For that matter, why didn't NASA build what people expected a space ship to look like - a big, burly spacecraft with smooth skin and rivets all over the place and submarine hatch doors and all that?
Anyone else care to post what NASA should have done in a real Moon Hoax?
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 9, 2010 19:30:16 GMT -4
Let me get this straight. Because someone created a fake that fooled no one (except desperate HBs), that is proof that Apollo itself was faked?
My head hurts.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 6, 2010 13:23:13 GMT -4
I just can't cope with Americans who call a missile a miss-il. There's an 'e' on the end of the word that makes the 'i' long. OK, I am now going to duck for cover... Resistance Is Futile.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 26, 2010 9:26:24 GMT -4
Man, oh man... that's probably the funniest thing I've read in a while. Thanks very much for the good laugh this morning. If you really were an "aeronautical engineer", you would have called yourself an "aeronautical engineer" and not made up the word "aeronautician". Epic fail... Next time at least have the brains to use a spell check. Cz I said "aeronautician because I'm french, not because I don't have competences in aeronics. Really? I've looked up the words "aeronautician" and "aeronics" in French dictionaries and get nothing. Om the other hand, "aeronautics" translates to "aéronautique" in French. You're full of it.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 25, 2010 21:00:11 GMT -4
I have never heard of a professional in any kind of entertainment industry confirm any of the contentions that HBs make as to how the lunar special effects were supposedly done.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Oct 18, 2010 12:40:47 GMT -4
The card looks to me to actually be part of an invitation.
Are there any other examples of this card, or cards like it showing up?
|
|