|
Post by cos on Apr 21, 2010 14:59:47 GMT -4
Show me a software guy who can replace the lower control arm on a MacPherson strut suspension and I'll show you a guy who is legitimately grateful to make his living in software. That's me! But I have an engineering degree so that probably explains it.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 21, 2010 9:51:35 GMT -4
Aside from dust being kicked up to obscure the tracks the visibility of the tracks in photographs very much depends on the relative sun angle, at certain inclinations the tracks are hard to spot. Also the astronauts did on occasion physically pick up the car and move it. I recall Dave Scott doing so at the end of an EVA (3?) on Apollo 15 - Mission control wanted a particular shot from the car mounted camera and I imagine it was quicker to drag the vehicle around rather manoeuvre it. Try explaining the tracks from a subsequent still photo! - if any HB cares to sit through the 9 EVAs of Apollo 15, 16 & 17 they can make a note of when this occurs - they won't of course but if they did they wouldn't be HBs at the end of it!
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 26, 2010 20:05:26 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 24, 2010 10:17:49 GMT -4
Well Professor Rourke ploughs on. He has updated his paper on Hadley and added some more photos he claims are fake. His best mate is Jack White and he recommends readers visit his site. He appears to have completely ignored GoneToPlaids explicit debunking and backed out of doing a VR simulation on the photos no doubt because it would prove he is talking hogwash. If an undergraduate gave me such a shoddy piece of work it would be all I could do to return it to them without having wiped my bottom with it. For your amusement here is the updated paper; msp.warwick.ac.uk/~cpr/hadley.pdfand GoneToPlaid's latest debunk (and I can understand why he has lost patience with the man) www.youtube.com/watch?v=owvhQqYnaNII will refrain from questioning the Professors state of mind but make of it what you will..
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 22, 2010 17:57:53 GMT -4
Have to wait and see but it can't beat the 'moonlandings were faked in a studio on the moon' angle.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 22, 2010 17:41:11 GMT -4
Welcome Capricorn1. May I ask if you are peddling a particular hoax theory or you'd just like to discuss/learn about aspects of the Apollo program? If the latter, you would be better advised to post to the Reality of Apollo board.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 22, 2010 17:33:52 GMT -4
Thank you for your irrevocably provable fact that proved to be anything but. Here is a moon phase calculator to help you in a search for actual facts. www.inconstantmoon.com/cal_phas.htmIf it is not being rude, why not spend your time reading clavius.org where you can find real information rather than the site I suspect you picked up that little gem, which is full of misinformation and outright lies.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 21, 2010 0:00:32 GMT -4
Fantastic image. I've seen a photo of the impact site for a stage from Apollo 14, do you think that any of the debris from a lunar module ascent stage would be visible?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 19:10:34 GMT -4
i would rather understand the truth though if there is great doubt, and there is great questionable doubt surrounding Apollo in it`s infancy. Er no there isn't. Please try to understand that just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't true. Now I have already pointed you at a link where you can go figure the fuel payload needed to achieve Lunar Orbit so can we at least put that one to bed? Now specifically, what else do you not understand?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 18:38:32 GMT -4
blackbriar1, If you want to learn something, try reading this thread. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=apollo&action=display&thread=1359Fuel loads are discussed in relation to the LM from Apollo 10 (Snoopy), in which it is shown that whilst it had enough propellant to land it did not have enough to take off and acheive Lunar orbit. If you plug the fuel payloads for the later LM's (the ones that did land) you can see that it was possible. If you are then interested we can discuss how the CM & LM located each other in Lunar Orbit.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 18:10:48 GMT -4
blackbriar1,
Are you saying the only people who can comment on Lunar Orbital Rendezvous are astronauts? Do you have something to say or can we close this thread?
(edited to spell your name correctly)
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 5, 2010 17:58:37 GMT -4
blackbriar1,
If you are finding people a little less than helpful, it is because you have posted into the Hoax Theory thread, so people are expecting you to defend your proposition from knowledge. If you genuinely don't know how something was done and want to find out why not ask the question in The Reality of Apollo board? You'll find people more than willing to help you fill in the gaps of your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 2, 2010 10:30:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 1, 2010 10:25:00 GMT -4
If I knew his antenna height above ground I could calculate the expected fade period for that VHF frequency. That is really interesting, thanks for that. Why not try contacting Baysinger and ask him. Nice to get these things nailed down whilst it is still possible (I get very annoyed that following James Van Allen's death in 2002, HBs frequently cite his initial discovery of the radiation belts as proof that they were unnavigable - ignoring every subsequent study!).
|
|
|
Post by cos on Feb 18, 2010 17:32:04 GMT -4
Of course a key aspect of McGowan's skepticism is the most peculiar lack of any evidence of such projects, programs or experiments. Most likely McGowan and I are missing something here? Your comments are invited. Thanks. I think Mr McGovan has fallen down the 'I haven't looked so it can't exist' hole (again). A snippet from that 23 page link you were referred to (page 5 - thanks to Count Zero). ......peculiar lack of any evidence of such projects, programs or experiments.? He hasn't looked.
|
|