|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jun 8, 2007 8:20:23 GMT -4
What am I supposed to think when I find stuff like this. I think you have got the punctuation wrong. This should read: Then the correct answer becomes, "yes you are."
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 31, 2007 10:53:38 GMT -4
By now he has fully embraced Jack White's logic of "I'm right, therefor you must be a lying shill, therefor I will not even explain why i'm right" He had that attitude long before he joined the Education Forum. reason for edit: accidental deletion of a square bracket.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 30, 2007 9:51:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 29, 2007 23:10:09 GMT -4
How sad that Professor Van Allen is no longer with us so that rocky could confirm for himself that this was indeed the position the great man held. Of course rocky probably wouldn't believe it unless the reply was via YouTube
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 29, 2007 15:39:37 GMT -4
This has been talked about quite a bit; I can't see why you're even bringing it up. According to the hoax theory the Van Allen belts are too radioactive to pass through. You talk about THE hoax theory is if there is just one. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are almost as many different versions of the moon hoax theories as there are charlatans that are willing to make money from the gullible. Hence there are many different reasons for claiming that we didn't/couldn't go to the moon, many of them contradictory to the point of being mutually exclusive. There is the "deadly radiation belts" story, the one you are talking about here. This claims that it is impossible to travel beyond LEO. There is the "couldn't make it by the end of the decade" story. This claims that it is possible for humans to travel to the moon but NASA was not ready in time. Rather than lose face they faked the missions so as not to miss JFK's deadline. Sometimes the Apollo 1 fire is given as the reason Apollo couldn't make the deadline, other times Apollo 1 is claimed to be NASA murdering Gus Grisom to keep him quiet about Apollo's short comings.A variation of this version of the hoax theory says that only some of the missions were faked, later missions were genuine. Yet other versions of the hoax claim that the landings were genuine but that some or all of the photographs were faked. Various reasons given for this are: - To cover up the fact that the astronauts discovered aliens on the moon.
- To cover up the fact that NASA used secret technology to reach the moon (usually claimed to be anti-gravity technology, often claimed to be from a crasher UFO).
- The most mundane, the photos weren't very good so NASA faked some of them.
The very fact that you made the statement I have quoted leads me to conclude that the reason you don't understand why the hoax theories are wrong is because you haven't yet fully understood what the hoax theories are.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 15, 2007 7:48:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 12, 2007 9:40:13 GMT -4
I don't think he likes me very much! ;D He doesn't like me much either, and I've never even been a member there.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Apr 25, 2007 18:49:37 GMT -4
[As to the abilities of the US aerospace industry, it might be significant that although the US had to import Harriers, the UK had to go to the US to get satellites launched. Be fair, we only had to go to the US because we decided it was to cheaper, not because we couldn't do it. The UK launched the X3 Prospero satellite with a Black Arrow launcher in 1971. The Black Arrow programme had been cancelled BEFORE the first successful launch.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Mar 20, 2007 14:50:19 GMT -4
The upshot is that going to the moon in 1969 would have been a big gamble, a long shot, there are so many factors, one miscalculation, vomiting and then suffocating in his space-suit or ripped apart by micro-meteors and you would have three all America heroes dying live on TV! And your point is? This is the usual CT nonsense. It was dangerous so they wouldn't have done it. Thankfully CTs are in the minority other wise there would be no explorers, or soldiers or fire-fighters in the world. As to the dangers, they were recognised and acknowledged BEFORE Apollo. The American public were aware of the potential dangers. In 1962 JFK made a speech at Rice University, Texas. I quote part of it here as it is far more eloquent than I could ever be:
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Jan 26, 2007 23:47:39 GMT -4
It seems to me that the thought processes described in Jay's "Oppression theory of conspiracism" post are indistinguishable from those of a religious cult.
Some, if not most, HBs do not discuss their own ideas but reel off, parrot fashion, the teachings of one of the "great gurus", Sibrel, White, Rene et al. (the only difference between this behaviour and that of the cult member is that the HB isn't required to learn the holy texts by heart, they just cut and paste). They will use the word "obviously" a lot even though the point they are making is not obvious at all. This is because they "have seen the light".
This is not the behaviour of the "independently minded researcher" many of the HBs claim to be, but the behaviour of a religious cult convert.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 23, 2007 19:06:59 GMT -4
I disagree with the 'until now' part, seems to imply he got something this time. That's why I said he agrees with us on one thing. He thinks he might be on to something now, we know he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on May 23, 2007 11:20:44 GMT -4
Mr. White's sub-title to his paranoid Education Forum thread, "Hmmmm....my latest posting has been removed..." very telling. He sub-titled it, "...maybe I am onto something important.", thus implying that he agrees with us on at least one thing... he hasn't been on to anything important up until now.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Nov 12, 2007 20:31:51 GMT -4
I've used Binoculars before. But being that I prefer looking at the winter sky and it gets cold here in Canada, I can't hold them very still. I guess I could get binoculars that mount on a tripod? But I'd rather invest in a telescope than buy another pair of binoculars plus a tripod. You can buy a very inexpensive gizmo that allows a pair of binoculars to be attached to a camera tripod. A good pair of binoculars (with nice big objective lenses) will give you better bang for your bucks than a really cheap telescope. A poorly made, cheap telescope can be a real disappointment. However if you do want a telescope both reflectors and refractors have advantages and disadvantages. Refractors tend to give better contrast. They also tend to be able to cope with higher magnifications. I know a lot of planetary observers like to used them. Reflectors on the other hand are better if you are after deep sky objects such as galaxies and nebulae. This site gives some good advice on telescopes: www.star.le.ac.uk/~dbl/ask/telescopes_faq.html
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Oct 1, 2007 10:43:27 GMT -4
]Dang-it, DC, I'd just about killed all the brain cells that remembered that. Now I'll have to start drinking all over again! I knew there was a reason why I had never stopped drinking. He is still making the same claims over at U-M.
|
|
|
Post by Waspie_Dwarf on Aug 15, 2007 8:47:27 GMT -4
Bum sniffers: What Australian Rules footy supporters call rugby league players (understandable if you see a rugby scrum). Also what Rugby League players call Rugby Union players.
|
|