|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 6, 2008 5:25:39 GMT -4
Only one person flew Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, but he retired before 11. Although, sadly, Gus Grissom should also have shared that honour.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 5, 2008 13:10:28 GMT -4
I don't want to sound like a CT here and I do not believe this story, however, playing devil's advocate: IF this plane was shot down, WHY would the government lie about it? I think your next sentence could offer an answer to that: After the initial hysteria had died down Again purely hypothetically, I can understand that a Government could fear the repercussions of killing it's own citizens. It may appear to them that it would be better to have the world believe that US citizens died heroically in a fight against the evil of terrorism than at the hands of the USAF. most people would have realised that that would have been the correct decision to make under these terrible circumstances. True, but not if the Government had initially lied. Look at the CT claims of mass murder on 9-11 which already exist, imagine what the US government's enemies (internal and external)would make of an admission that the government had killed it's own citizens on that day and then covered it up. Imagine also the effect it would have on the relatives of those that died, founding out that they had been lied to about the circumstances of their loved ones deaths. It would actually make the government look good. (Something they desperately needed, and need.) Only if they had been honest at the time. To admit they had lied would be make the US government look anything but good after the event. I repeat I do not believe this story (and will not do so unless evidence appears to confirm it) but of all the CT theories surrounding 9-11 this is the one that I find the least ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 12, 2007 21:35:27 GMT -4
Not necessarily. Voskhod was already planned as a two-man craft, even if it was in itself a modified one-man craft. At the last minute it was further modified to get a third man in. That is a fair point, but in the context of the HB argument that the Soviet Union was far ahead of the USA in space technology I still feel that it a better (and totally honest) argument to point out that the Voskhod was essentially a modification of a one manned craft. Voskhod 1 was in reality a public stunt to launch 3 men into space before the USA had launched 2. Whilst the USA were about to launch a genuine 2 manned vehicle with manoeuvring and docking capability the "technically superior" USSR were reduced to modifying a one manned capsule with none of these capabilities and which did not even have a launch escape ability.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 12, 2007 6:53:10 GMT -4
Under "Technology: Beating the Soviets: First crew of three astronauts on board one spacecraft." it says, "This would be a good example if the Soviets hadn't simply stuffed a third man into their two-man capsule just to set the record," As Voskhod 1 was essentially a stripped down Vostok with no ejector seats it would be more correct to say that the Soviets had stuffed two extra men into a one-man capsule.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 9, 2007 13:29:28 GMT -4
and appears to be at a place called King's Cross (also the name of the chapter), are big tip-offs to the Christian background to the story. You are reading far too much into "King's Cross". It has very little to do with Christianity, but it is a real place in London with a real railway station. The name does not have Christian connotation's but arises because it was the location of a memorial to George IV.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Oct 9, 2007 14:05:42 GMT -4
"'bolt" is short for "reynoldbolt". It's an intentional shortening of your user name - you may have missed the apostrophe at the beginning. Which would be fine if his name was reynoldbolt. As it isn't his point stands.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 14, 2007 9:38:50 GMT -4
I read the Bible and found no evidence to support a theory of intelligent life on other planets I read the Bible and found no evidence to support a theory of a creator god. So what?
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Sept 29, 2007 18:56:41 GMT -4
before you let the cat out of the bag. Cat? If that's a cat then the contents of both pictures have been altered drastically. Edited to correct grammar.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jun 3, 2007 18:30:17 GMT -4
My guess is that the footage was full of flashes and they airbrushed them all out but missed the one in the YouTube footage because it was so close to the antenna flash. This is the kind of stuff that convinces me that Apollo was a hoax. Is this circular argument? I've just used this argument to calculate Pi to 10,000,000 decimal places. You start of admitting you are guessing. You end up by saying that this convinces you that you are correct. How can you not see that this is circular? You claim that the lack of evidence for your claim is evidence that there is a cover up. How can you not see that this is circular?
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Nov 5, 2007 11:55:53 GMT -4
He didn't even bother to change his style. In my experience styles on sites like this are usually very distinctive. Even if a troll tries to change their style when they return as a sock puppet they will very quickly slip back in to old habits, this is why they usually get caught. What amazes me at Unexplained Mysteries, where I moderate, is how easy some trolls make it for us. They will get banned under a name such as "XYZ" and then re-register as "XYZ2". Some are bright enough to change their name to something totally different but in their first post will say something like, "Hi, I'm Joe the Troll, you might know me as XYZ". Then they wonder why they get banned again. These people need to be banned from the internet, they are too stupid to be allowed access.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Oct 8, 2007 6:10:13 GMT -4
Even if I was a rabid HB I don't think I could argue with any of your actions. Sadly in many cases it is the very fact that rabid HBs DO argue with these sensible actions that get them banned.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 8, 2007 15:04:54 GMT -4
Does anyone know if he get banned from BAUT? Just curious Pete Yes, he was known as "inverse" there. He was also previously banned from this site as "orumdude". He was banned from Unexplained-Mysteries as "kilter". When his msn site was attacked a few months back it was attacked by someone who knew his past history and listed all his previous user names, which was helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Sept 28, 2007 11:19:08 GMT -4
Same as the one I mentioned in the previous post. I have the launch time as 2212 GMT on the 27th. What's your source for the 28th? 22:12 GMT on the 27th would be the 28th Moscow time.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 22, 2007 6:16:18 GMT -4
Today is the 50th anniversary of the first successful flight of the Soviet Union's R-7 ICBM. This rocket would later launch Sputnik 1, Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1 and remains in service today as the Soyuz launch vehicle. Link to S.P. Korolev RSC Energia story on the anniversary: www.energia.ru/eng/news/news-2007/news_08-21.html
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Nov 10, 2007 0:10:01 GMT -4
HBs are typically not ashamed of the fact that they " want to believe" Wanting to believe I can understand. Wanting to believe that there is a god, wanting to believe in eternal life, wanting to believe in micracles, wanting to believe in the Loch Ness monster. There is nothing to be ashamed of in wanting to believe. The problem with HBs is they want to disbelieve.
|
|