|
Post by randombloke on Dec 9, 2011 12:40:12 GMT -4
The results would be vastly more interesting if you went back before the TV age and even back to the middle ages where people were "abducted" or visited by fairies, elves and succubi whenever they found themselves awake but unable to move.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 7, 2011 15:55:37 GMT -4
Oh yes, but the essence of the successful hammer-block then becomes that not only do you time everything right, but also that you don't flinch and let the hammer strike anyway...
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 7, 2011 7:53:55 GMT -4
Revolvers tend to have external, and relatively large, hammers that move noticeably when the trigger is pulled. If you're close enough and have sharp enough eyes and reflexes, there is plenty of time to get a finger between the hammer and the frame when the other guy starts to fire. Alternatively, you can, if you have the right angles, get enough leverage to pull the hammer back and insert a finger before the trigger is pulled at all. Also, the possibility exists that the pistol was very old and required manual cocking before each trigger pull; that is, the hammer needs to be pulled back with the thumb before each shot and the trigger only releases the stored energy to move the hammer to the primer, but that is unlikely.
This is vastly more difficult with more modern weapons because they tend to have smaller hammers with stronger springs and faster actions and some models leave the hammer in the 'cocked' position after each shot such that the trigger only acts as a release rather than drawing the hammer back first. It's even impossible with some models because the hammer is entirely enclosed or is an integral part of the slide rather than an external component.
If the officer had intercepted a striking hammer though, I would expect it to hurt like hell of course; those things are small, pointy, and driven by surprising force.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 23:07:25 GMT -4
I think I don't have anything to do with the Daily Fail for a reason. What is the actual content of the article, if such can be discerned under the mound of tabloid slush?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 15:26:58 GMT -4
Wait, who colourises old B&W cinema reels? Documentary film of, say, the D-day landings is a good candidate, I think, but old silent movies and such? Forget it.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 15:24:16 GMT -4
Then also an explanation for all the other pictures available of rocks from various missions that are also clear of dust. And still you fail to explain how you have come to the conclusion that any given photograph of a rock would indicate that it is free of dust or otherwise. We can talk about how rocks accrue and shed dust layers when you find a rock that has/had a dust layer (or not). And only then, because the specific reason for a specific rock to be dust free or buried up to its chin in the stuff will be as individual as the rock itself.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 14:51:54 GMT -4
He is the commander, he is speaking not only for himself, he is also speaking for the mission where Aldrin and Collins were accountable to Armstrong. B ullsh*t. Not to put too fine a point on it but a) that is not within the scope of the "commander" position at any point and b) it is very definitely no longer the case when giving a personal account in an interview many years after the fact.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -4
twik i do not have an imagination capable of creating a scenario that would deposit dust just on the ground layer. To state that dust would not be accumulated on top of a rock there needs to be a mechanism that accounts for the material specifically being averted from the top surface of the rock. Then your imagination is (perhaps unsurprisingly, given your posting history) exceptionally poor, to have missed even the most obvious answer; the rock being deposited after the dust, due either to selenological action or impact. On the other hand, you still have not supplied any evidence beyond bald assertion that there is no dust on the rock. Correct that oversight and you might start to garner some respect.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 2, 2011 10:29:54 GMT -4
time travelers!!! ;D Cool pictures!!! ;D Can you use digital techniques to convert old black and white pictures to this? we have computers today, some old black and white movies have color now. You can make guesses, even pretty good guesses if you have an accurate sample of the original colours, but they are never going to be as good as these. I do like that you can see the fundamental issue with this technique even in these posed shots; look at the water and some of the children in the later pictures.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Dec 1, 2011 12:57:55 GMT -4
What is your actual point? Woo, exhausts can be visible in space, wow. Now find someone, anyone, on this board who isn't you, who said that it was impossible to see exhausts. While you're at it find who said it was impossible to see stars, since you're apparently still stuck on that part too.
When you do find them, be sure to post links to the relevant posts; I could do with a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 29, 2011 14:34:14 GMT -4
Yeah, all that 40K can't be good for you (I mean, c'mon, it even spits out antimatter! ) ; I avoid them where possible. Fortunately I live in a thick walled granite house built right out of the bedrock, so none of those nasty radiomations can get to me. Shh!
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 24, 2011 12:27:48 GMT -4
This has been explained to you a dozen or more times, including the last time you brought up this Melvill person, and you continue to ignore any and all refutations. Why then should anyone bother to give you the answers again, since you continue to be determined to refuse to 'hear' any argument that does not agree with your presuppositions?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 24, 2011 9:45:01 GMT -4
Jason, you're going to confuse the poor guy with your complicated jargon like "sphere" and "limb"; may I humbly suggest the use of alternates like "ball" and "edge"? Not that it will help that much...I don't think anything can.
P.S. Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the flag(s)?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 18, 2011 10:17:21 GMT -4
Sort of. If someone wanted to recreate the entire Apollo programme down to the last nut, the blueprints (almost certainly) still exist as microfilm copies, but 90+% of the expertise of the original builders has been lost through natural wastage over forty years of not doing anything like it. But then, why would someone want to do that? Materials and computer science has advanced significantly since then, as has our understanding of human biology in space, and a bunch of other things. Recreating the Apollo programme would be an exciting exercise in experimental archaeology but ultimately quite silly; the technology to go to the Moon, as it existed in the sixties, has disappeared, in large part because we've improved on so much of it that the old ways have been discarded.
To send people to the Moon tomorrow would require starting almost from scratch, true, but then "scratch" these days is significantly further forward than where it was in the sixties: There are now groups all over the place that regularly put things into space, including people, which was simply not the case back when Apollo was first conceived and while there are no heavy-lift vehicles on the scale of the Saturn V any more, LEO is positively crowded and there is a semi-permanent presence up there to use as a staging point too.
So, would a new Lunar programme have to start from the beginning again? Sure, but it wouldn't have to teach a whole generation of engineers what the "beginning" is first, nor would there be any need to determine if humans could even survive in microG without falling apart first. Accordingly, I reckon it could be faster and cheaper than the original, assuming all you wanted to do was land two people and bring them home after a short while. But then, we already did that; why repeat ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 17, 2011 8:45:19 GMT -4
Also, given that this whole "debate" is predicated on the leg coatings somehow miraculously not being damaged by the exhaust, has anyone come up with a source that claims they remained undamaged?
I mean, really; I personally don't see a point in defending a claim no-one ever made.
So it would be nice if playdoh here could explain why the damage, or lack thereof, to the descent stage support strut outer coatings is in any way relevant to anything, or at least tell us who's feeding him his lines.
|
|