|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 11:36:28 GMT -4
If that's your idea of a good example..... You definately need a read on how objects work in a low gravity enviroment. In a nutshell, you have to distinguish between mass and weight (if you recall from science class, those are different things). How does this apply here? Simple; while the astronauts weigh less, they still have the same mass. So, they must contend with interia. In the case where one is being helped to his feet, he takes advantage of this. Oh yes, the glints of light are one of two things: lens flares and video artifacts (random bits of "noise" from a video recording). The person in that video, David Percy, has a very limited understanding of space exploration. He's hardly qualifed to make judgements. As for that MSN group, that "elsewhere-man" is no better. Note that he only made that forum so he could be insulting to others without a risk of himself being banned (as he was from this forum, BAUT, and possibly others). Not the sign of a mature individual. Has anyone discussed the issue of the moon rocks returned by Apollo with you, heavenlybody? Or the tracking of the spacecraft? You might have answered this once before, but what exactly would've prevented Apollo from taking place? What is it about it exactly that makes you think it not real?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 10, 2007 9:10:56 GMT -4
Heavenlybody, do you not see a pattern? Every one of your claims is dismantled, right before your eyes. Do you not consider the possibility that you are wrong in your beliefs? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 9, 2007 12:12:28 GMT -4
Once the LM was detached from the CSM it did not do the "spit-roast". How was the green-house effect compensated for? As mentioned, both passive and active cooling systems were on the LM. Which is NOT what happened with the LM. It was tested quite a few times. Technically true; they landed six. This is an "if-I-ran-the-zoo" arguement (for me, an "if-I-was-the-captain"). The LM was best meant for a human assisted landing. Apollo 11 proved the benifit of that. Wrong. What you may be thinking of are the training craft. Those are a different machine entirely. The actual LM could not operate in an Earth gravity enviroment. Wrong. Like many HBers, you only look at the crashed flights. You are not considering the many successful flights. Wrong. AFAIK, it was tested on Apollo 9 and 10. And who told you that? Issac Newton's laws work on the moon just as well as they do on the Earth. So, what's the complication? Why? Why is it so hard to believe? There were thousands of people working on it, the best in their fields. They had loads of money to play with. And there was extensive QA being done to ensure it worked right. You appearently don't know how things work in the world of engineering, do you?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 1, 2007 22:59:17 GMT -4
Untested hardware such as the LM?
Appearently, you never heard of Apollo 5.
Hence the reason for the BBQ roll; since the light isn't constently streaming in, the heat doesn't build up. Also, there were cooling systems. And lastly, the LM as a whole wasn't in sunlight. With part of it in shadow, the heat load was balanced, thus no greenhouse effect.
Now, I repeat these to you:
1)Have you heard of the plans for returning to the moon? Do you think that will be fake too? If so, why?
2)Enlighten me to your insight: what exactly prevented Apollo from going to the moon in your view? What technology was lacking?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 7, 2006 17:39:45 GMT -4
She just might. She's probably gathering her wits about her.
I have to wonder if she even read the definition you provided for her:
Typical HB behavior; ignore what contradicts your beliefs and stick to your own little world.
Ah well, all is well that ends well.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 7, 2006 9:19:55 GMT -4
Tell me this HeavenlyBody: Have you heard of the plans for returning to the moon? Do you think that will be fake too? If so, why?
Enlighten me to your insight: what exactly prevented Apollo from going to the moon in your view? What technology was lacking?
The examinaton is that of those involved in aerospac technology, science, and other relavent fields. You know, the real experts, not the supposed ones (like Percy, the late Kaysing, et al).
You have shown a signifigent lack of knowledge concerning the Apollo program to make the claims that you have been doing. None have withstood examination.
That should tell you something.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Oct 20, 2006 19:34:15 GMT -4
Heavenlybody,
Back to what you said about the technology...
Are you under the impression that Apollo was a sudden thing that was randomly slapped together? If so, you're very much mistaken. A good deal of Ph.D went into making it possible. Hundreds of thousands of workers across the country put forth efforts to make the mission possible.
The developement for the Saturn 5, for instance, began in the late 1950s. After President Kennedy gave the moon missions priority, developement accelerated, with the results we've seen with the six actual landings.
You ask why the burden of proof is upon you. That is because it involves a well known phrase in science; extraordinary claims requite extraordinary proof.
There is lots of proof that the missions were real; images, videos, radar tracking, Doppler plots, amatuer astronomers observing events of the spacecraft, and most importantly the samples of moon rocks and core samples, which upon examination have characteristics that are impossible to duplicate on Earth.
So, it is up to you to prove the landings were faked. And that evidence has to stand up to examination. Remember, the "professionals" that propogate the moon hoax, like Ralph Rene, Jack White, David Percy, the late Bill Kaysing, and Bart Sibrel, put forth claims that do not stand to investigation. Keep that in mind when you present your evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Oct 18, 2006 17:22:10 GMT -4
Never heard of it referred to as the "Test Band Treaty".
Last I knew, it was the Limited Test Ban.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 23, 2007 12:18:03 GMT -4
So now "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette has crossed the line to become someone who takes money from the gullible instead of just fooling them. Reminds me of what James Randi said of Sylvia Brown and other "physic mediums". Hmm, appearently HBers and mediums have something in common. Coincidence? Read the book!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:32:06 GMT -4
Makes me wonder if Hoagland watched too much "Dune".
Can't say I blame him; after seeing that film, and looking at pics of Mars in my book "Beyond", I often think of that film.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 16:18:48 GMT -4
Problem is, those bunnies were awefully small! Micro-bunnies?
From the title of this thread, I wondered one of two things; if CD either found his behind, or he found Jesus!
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 11, 2007 11:42:15 GMT -4
That's funny.
At least Richard Hoagland sticks to one story concerning Apollo.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 23, 2006 10:16:09 GMT -4
The ALSEP experiments returned environmental data for years from the lunar surface. OK, so we have years of data on the Lunar surface environment including radiation intensities. Why then are they sending a probe with a suite of measuring instruments to determine just that? What probe would that be? Do you refer to the Lunar Reconnesiense Orbiter? Let me think about this one.....because we currently don't have a spacecraft or the infrastructure for such a mission? True, the risk is still there. The main difference is that we have more data now then back then. Thus, we can better prepare for longer stays.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 18, 2006 23:01:48 GMT -4
Do we get special hats for that? Beanies.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Dec 16, 2006 10:23:22 GMT -4
The Delta Rocket is the rocket of the future. They will be using it to launch future Shuttles, the new age shuttles. What shuttles would that be? Appearently, you never heard of the CEV and the Ares 1.
|
|