|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 20, 2012 8:28:28 GMT -4
The VAB "had its own weather inside -including clouds." This one is actually true. The building has a sufficiently large interior volume that clouds have been known to form inside it on very humid days, despite the best efforts of the vast air conditioning units.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 14, 2012 4:07:18 GMT -4
The photos of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon do not show the astronaut being located uniquely upon the lunar surface at Tranquility Base. And precisely what landmarks that are unique to the Sea of Tranquility, a wide, largely flat, featureless lunar plain, do you expect to see? Your argument is patently absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 12, 2012 17:22:32 GMT -4
He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. Absolute rubbish. The OP, whether on this thread or on others, has veered wildly from LM that did work but did not land, that did not work well enough to land, that did not work at all, and one that would work as advertised. When the Op can't even keep something as fundamental as the capabilities of the LM consistent in their stories from post to post, there is something very shaky about their conclusions. Simple question for you requiring a simple answer: Do you understand the difference between not knowing exactly where something is and not knowing at all where something is?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:37:17 GMT -4
Why did Aldrin say that the star chart was important to them then? The only conceivable reason for it to have been carried was for help with sighting stars. They need to sight stars to determine the orientation of the guidance system. If it is precise enough to do that then the method should be precise enough for them to locate themselves. Why does a precise method of working out which way you are facing tell you exactly where you are? I can orient myself facing north very very easily by sighting stars. If I know the time and where those stars should be I can then use that information to orient myself in any given direction. That's the easy bit. Now how precisely can I then locate my position on the surface of the Earth? Or, to put it another way, how far would I have to move from my current position in order for the stars to appear sufficiently different for me to identify that I had moved? And here's the best bit about that question: you can actually go out and do this for yourself on any clear night. Go out and learn the difference between working out which way you are facing and where you are located. It shouldn't be too hard to do. We'll await your results from this simple experiment you and your girlfriends can do easily.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:33:25 GMT -4
the moon had been so well mapped that if precise coordinates had been provided they would not correspond to what was seen on television that evening. And just what was that? In another post you described the Apollo 11 landscape as 'generic nothing'. The Sea of Tranquility is a very large expanse of pretty well nothing. How precise would the co-ordinates have to have been to make the 'generic nothing' seen on the TV screen match another bit of 'generic nothing' elsewhere in the flat plain that is few hundred miles across? No it would not. For one thing a land horizon is rarely a true horizon. That method of navigation was only ever used on the sea, where you had a true horizon devoid of landmarks and hills and valleys.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:28:22 GMT -4
Two cameras seem better than one especially given safety concerns. For what safety related reasons would a second stills camera have been useful? Explain why taking pictures is so critical it requires redudancy? So what? We had live TV and 16 mm film of the event. The loss of pictures would be annoying to the geologists and might have been a minor PR point, but we'd still have a record and we'd still have the samples returned. Well of course they do, if you have the same preconceptions about the circumstances as you do.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:25:28 GMT -4
I am more qualified because I am more thoughtful. I am not easily fooled. The scientists are gullible. So your ignorance is worth a million science degrees? Oh please....
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:24:41 GMT -4
[quote author=forthethrillofital board=theories thread=3336 post=98512 time=132856089If the NASA missions to the moon were real there must be comprehensive scientific documents that look into all of this in a focused way. [/quote]
So go look for them then. Start with the reference you quoted in that post for one thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 7, 2012 4:20:04 GMT -4
Perhaps they only hoaxed the Apollo 1 deaths. Admittedly this seems unlikely. On the other hand it would go a long way to convince many people that the program was "authentic" to use a term the OP seems to be fond of. You rteally have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Every single death in the astronaut office went a long way to convincing people the project was too dangerous, and when the Apollo 1 crew died as a result of the spacecraft design the result was a public enquiry and a media circus. US senators were using those deaths to argue for shutting down the whole program. What kind of lame, backwards method of faking a lunar landing intentionally riskes undermining it to that extent?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 11:16:26 GMT -4
They never behave like guys that went to the moon. And how should they behave, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 11:15:55 GMT -4
What is to say that the Apollo 8 and 10 images are not courtesy of unmanned probes. That seems quite possible to me. Then please do explain where these unmanned probes with 70 mm Hasselblad film cameras in them were made and launched, and how they worked. Then explain how the Apollo 10 unmanned probes got pictures of the Apollo lunar and command modules. That requires those spacecraft to have gone to the Moon. Then explain the video and film footage of those spacecraft that are contemprary with those pictures. In fact, just provide any evidence of your 'possibilities' and we might start taking your posts more seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 11:12:58 GMT -4
My general point is that they would not hoax a moon landing without having the photos and films already in the can. The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. Now prove that they are fake images and you might have an argument. What you're doing is the equivalent of debating my means and motive for murdering my wife before checking she's actually dead.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 11:09:34 GMT -4
The OP's point was that the writings of highly regarded authors such as Chaiken consistently feature statements making reference to the astronauts not knowing where they were. But they don't. They make references to the astronauts not knowing exactly where they were. That's a hell of a difference. They knew where they were to within an acceptable margin of error. They passed landmarks they recognised on the way down. That's a world away from being totally lost, which is what the OP claimed. He also claimed they were too lost to effect a successful rendezvous, but was unable to explain why he thought you needed to know your exact position to do this. Do you feel he had a point there as well? Again, they didn't know exactly where they were, but knew they had to be somewhere within a specified landing elipse.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 9:06:55 GMT -4
I read that flares releasing lethal radiation doses are not uncommon. Define 'not uncommon', and tell us where you read that. I have read it too, but never yet in a proper scientific tract regarding the Sun's behaviour. How dangerous are those circumstances? How common are such flares, what level of radiation do they deliver, and what means of protecting the crews were there in case such a flare did occur? Of course it does, if all you're going on is 'solar flares can kill and they happen sometimes'. However, answer those questions I posed above, and consider that the astronauts are former test and/or combat pilots: i.e. men who willingly climbed into aircraft without knowing for certain that their return to the ground would be a slow safe one rather than a rapid descent into a fireball that would turn them into a charred and mangled lump of flesh that was only identifiable because the ground crews knew who went up in that plane in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 2, 2012 9:05:14 GMT -4
That's weird and very frustrating. Now we have only quote of his posts, and none of the bad attitude remains intact.
|
|