|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 27, 2007 23:03:10 GMT -4
He was a member of the Nazi party. So what? What does this prove? It still doesn't answer these questions about Apollo that I posed to you: >Was there a problem with the Saturn 5 rocket that meant it couldn't be used? >Was there a problem with the Block 2 Apollo capsule or it's systems that made it an unworthy spacecraft? >Was there a similar problem with the LM or it's systems? >Is there some factor about the lunar environment or cislunar space that prevented Apollo from happening? Now, is there any reason you can't answer these? As long as they go unanswered, I still pose them to you until you answer them.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 27, 2007 11:15:29 GMT -4
You are putting not only words in our mouth but entire conspiracies theories in the hope to discredit us. No, we debunkers don't discredit CTers. You do it to yourselves. Moon Man was notorious for this. Care to back this up? How do you know he, along with many others, had no choice, that he faced a prison sentence if he didn't' cooperate? In fact, he did get two weeks prison time because it was thought that he was wasting resources and time. Provided that you are correct in your speculation. Considering your reputation, you are not correct. This does nothing to prove anything you are saying. It merely lists reasons for the changes, not what is a primary or a secondary effect. Seems like a desperate attempt at trying to prove yourself. And once again, you failed. Miserably. Also, since we are speaking of Apollo, the effects of atmosphere do not apply.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 26, 2007 12:37:49 GMT -4
I believe it's a social issue expressed in political terms. Conspiracists believe themselves to be an oppressed minority. People who believe themselves to be oppressed can take comfort that whatever misfortune or failure they experience is not their fault. The government makes an easy target for accusations of oppression, but any presumed authority will work. The conspiracy theories serve as pseudo-evidence that the government really is oppressing people as the conspiracists claim. Because they're considered premises to a larger issue the conspiracists don't necessarily want to question them or see them questioned. And that's also why objections to our rebuttals often accuse us of being government sympathizers. They wrongly think we share the connection between conspiracy theories and oppression. Too bad they can't see the science behind our rebuttals, rather than ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 24, 2007 13:32:20 GMT -4
Are you sure they're not all related? ;D Only if they're from Kentucky or West Virginia. Zing!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 23, 2007 14:55:47 GMT -4
We have not gone any where or digging up any dirt, simply waiting for you (the pro-moony play-group) to say something that will prove our experiment to be false. We invite your returning champion jayutah to stare directly at the sun just before sunset about 20 minute before it sets for 15 minutes. Then try to repeat the experiment the next day around noon for 15 minutes make sure during both phases you keep your retina at 90 degrees from the incoming solar-radiation as not to confused the affects of insolation and difusion, and see if you do not have some serious injury to your eyes. Most probably permanent injuries even partial or complete blindness! We are not sure whether it is a failure to understand this simple principle or are you trying to change the laws of physics to suit your arguments. Jason & Bill, Are you sure that you are not related? Maybe you are distant cousins. HB (ironic initials you have, BTW), your experiment will show nothing, other than proving that one should not look at the sun. You know, a Halogen light can also produce similar brightness to the sun, but without heating the whole area it's light reaches. So, your experiment is inherently flawed. The axial tilt of the Earth that causes the seasons proves your reasoning is in error; angle does play a primary role in the amount of heat an object receives. In case you missed that, read over Jay's explanation again. Carefully. No one here is trying to change the laws of physics. It merely seems that you are having a hard time understanding them. Looking back, I saw on the first page of this thread that PhantomWolf provided a sufficient answer for the thermal control of the LM. I suggest you re-read what he wrote. I recall some time ago I posed questions about why Apollo had to be hoaxed. I'll ask again, with some revisions, and I expect a reply to all of them: Was there a problem with the Saturn 5 rocket that meant it couldn't be used? Was there a problem with the Block 2 Apollo capsule that made it an unworthy spacecraft? Was there a similar problem with the LM or it's computer system? Is there some factor about the lunar environment or cislunar space that prevented Apollo from happening? Is such a problem solvable, so that the return missions to the moon in 2020 can be real? Lastly, a personal question... Why do you refer to yourself in the plural form? Who is "we"? Is there more than one person using your account? I await your replies....
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 22, 2007 14:34:21 GMT -4
Given Heavenlybody's absence, she is either trying to dig up more HB dirt, or had just given up.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 19, 2007 12:09:37 GMT -4
In other words, the angle of the sun is the primary reason for temperature difference, and the atmosphere is a secondary reason, right Jay?
BTW, good to see your return.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 18, 2007 15:16:41 GMT -4
GL, We would like you to conduct a little experiment. To verify which is of greater effect here on Earth. Atmospheric diffusion or insolation? This evening just before sunset we would like you to find a nice spot and take a really good look at the sunset from about 15 minutes before the Sun drops behind the horizon. We would like you to look directly at the Sun making sure your retina is as close to 90 degrees to the incoming solar radiation as possible. Did you notice anything strange? No we did not think so. Now the next day at around 12 noon we would like you to go back to that same spot and look directly up at the Sun for 15 minutes. Please be sure to tilt you head back as to make sure your retina is again at as close to 90 degrees as you can from the incoming solar radiation. Did you notice any difference? You are either totally susceptible to disinformation or you are a disinformationist. First off, what's with this "we" stuff? Don't you refer to yourself as an individual anymore? The only other time I saw this behavior was in the movie ET, and with the Borg. So, what's your excuse? To be honest, I don't know what looking at the sun will do. The effect of the angle of the sun's rays hitting a surface is more clearly seen by the temperature of the surface it is striking. And this is more clearly seen by the changing of the seasons. If this was July, then instead of having a temperature right now of 78 F, it'd be 98 F. Why the change? It's the tilt of the Earth relative to the sun. Considering that we are no longer in contact with those two probes, it's a bit moot to discuss them. In any case, I did read on the anomaly; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly. The force is very small. And judging from the read, it has nothing to do with Apollo. You are desperate to try and prove your point, aren't you? If you thought you had something in support of your ideas, you are very wrong. I'll take this thing anyway; an atmosphere is only one factor. Incidently, the type of atmosphere also matters. Check the data for Venus. Distance from the sun and thickness matter too; look at the data for Mars. Nope. I find you are both wrong and/or grasping at straws. If that was true, you wouldn't be loosing your arguements. Oh yes, and PhantomWolf was talking to me. If you actually read the posts, you'd know that.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 16, 2007 22:12:23 GMT -4
Good to see the attitude is gone (for now). Also nice to see that you don't intend to ignore every post I make. Grand lunar, The seasons are cold in winter because the entire hemisphere receives less solar-radiation didn't you learn that in school? The days are longer in the summer-time and shorter in the winter-time, plus more diffusion in winter and less in summer. We are not saying that insolation is not a factor but it does matter what kind of surface the solar-radiation is striking, for example water is a very good reflector at low angles and soil is not. So even if it receive more solar-radiation some surfaces will reflected/deflected away. There are many factors in weather systems. I was taught that diffusion was the reason and it make sense because if you go very far north you do not get a tan as easy regardless of what angle you position your body to the sun-rays because they do not have as much energy due to diffusion. The angle of the sun is a larger influence to the temperature of objects, including planetary bodies like the Earth. Most people don't get a tan in the far north because there's the risk of freezing to death if one does. Also, diffusion won't stop those UV rays that will give you a tan (or a burn); it's the angle. Though you didn't direct it to me, I'm tackling these issues anyway... Answers to post 205 - LM thermal control was unachievable Yes we concurWhy was it unattainable? What do you know about thermal control in a vaccum that allows you to make such an assesment? - the LMs were not tested Yes we concurThis is a glaring error. Apollo 5 was an unmanned test. Apollo 9 was a test in LEO, Apollo 10 in lunar orbit. And let's not forget the tests done before final assembly, to ensure all systems work. - the LLxVs were actually LM test vehicles rather than flight simulators who said they were not?Those that built the things, the pilots, ect, say they were not. Find photos of the LM, and compare them to the test vechiles. Do they even look like the same craft? While you're at it, look at the diagrams of their designs (you can do it if you know where to look). - the LLxVs were uncontrollable and not useful yes we concurYou concur, despite the evidence against this claim? How odd of you. - Newtonian physics varies unpredictably between the Earth and the Moon the fact that the Pioneer 10 and 11 space-probes are receding from the sun slightly more slowly than they should be. www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3104321 explain that with Newtonian physics.As another user said, they're off by centimeters. Big honking deal. - no assessment of the lunar surface was done prior to the first LM landing a very basic assessment was carried out but insufficient data was retrievedWhat was wrong with the Surveyor missions that was so insufficent? Are you a planetary scientist? Can you make a call on what is and is not a sufficent survey? - Surveyor 6 crash-landed? for want of a better description yes.Data contridicts your idea; the thing soft landed, not crashed. In short, your claims are unsubstantiated. Do you even do any research for real answers?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 13, 2007 9:54:24 GMT -4
Cool, the BA is there! Hi Phil! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 13, 2007 9:36:08 GMT -4
Gwiz, Do you have any idea what you are talking about? MERCURY HAS AN ATMOSPHERE Guess what the moon has a very, very thin atmosphere too, that does not defuse solar-energy much. Guess what? Mercury's atmosphere is about as substantial as the moon's. So, nope, that's not a factor. Who's this "we"? Do you speak for HBers, or the Collective? Whatever atmosphere the moon has is very tenuous. It would still register as a vaccum. So, it makes little sense in trying to measure it's temperature. That's why the surface temperature is given. Tell you what; go outside at dawn and feel how warm the pavement (such as the driveway) is. At noon, do the same. That is an example of what effect the angle of the sun has on the surface temperature. Same thing applies to the poles of the Earth; because of the low angle of the sun, they don't get much heat, hence are rather cold. Ditto for the lunar surface at the landing site; they landed when it wasn't too hot. And he is correct. Read some basic science. So, you call him a liar because of your misinterpretation? Bad form. Bzzt! Wrong! Why do you think the Earth experiences seasons according to the angle of which the sun strikes each hemisphere? Wrong again! Didn't you learn about this stuff in science class? I suggest reading on it before you make any more claims, or call anyone else a liar. And incidently, the LM's footpads were insulated, so there was little heat transfer from the lunar surface to the spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 12, 2007 12:26:24 GMT -4
That goes double for me. I'd really like to know these things too.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 12, 2007 9:08:55 GMT -4
.... This is the kind of behavior that makes other people despise you and your little clique of Apollo worshipers. All you do is accuse people of your own crimes, in the true fashion of a 17th century witch hunt. Running around pointing fingers and making accusations of ignorance When all the time it is you and your little clique of Apolloist that are completely ignorant. Just look at this video clip and tell me they are not on wires! www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUEThey're not on wires. I already explained it in one of my posts. Read it. Keep up the attitude you present here, you'll add rudeness as well as false accusations to your infringements. Perhaps you want to be banned? If so, it won't make you a martyr, as the reasons for banning are recorded. Just saying that it's because you make hoax claims won't cut it. Nope, it'll be for rudeness and false accusations. Keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:43:49 GMT -4
Seems workable. BAUT has similar policies.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:17:13 GMT -4
What if she does neither?
|
|