|
Post by randombloke on Sept 5, 2011 12:57:24 GMT -4
Wait, where are these people? I could use a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Aug 29, 2011 5:30:12 GMT -4
Wait, how tall is the LM ladder? Because it looks like someone wearing eighty pounds of space suit made a standing leap of six or seven feet look easy. I don't know many specialist athletes that could manage the in terrestrial gravity wearing nothing more restrictive/massive than a leotard...sure the high jump world record is something like eight feet but that's using a run-up and the Fosbury Flop technique.
|
|
|
Numbers
Jul 22, 2011 13:34:55 GMT -4
Post by randombloke on Jul 22, 2011 13:34:55 GMT -4
Oh yeah. With this display of maturity, I'm convinced -- this guy is most assuredly a doctor. A doctor of what? I don't think he ever specified exactly, nor ever attempted to back up his claim with evidence (a familiar tune, that) but he mentioned a "practise" so I guess he was trying to claim a MD? He also claimed some (patently non-existent) expertise in engineering, not that he ever claimed a specialisation for that either. The idea of the mind behind these posts having any sort of job at a medical practice is distressing enough, even without the connotations of it being given authority and trust too.
|
|
|
Numbers
Jul 22, 2011 12:48:00 GMT -4
Post by randombloke on Jul 22, 2011 12:48:00 GMT -4
So, other than the ability to copy&paste numbers you don't understand, what exactly have you demonstrated here tubbyrunner?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 19, 2011 20:08:57 GMT -4
From a strictly layman's perspective I, noting the effect thin aluminium foil has on microwaves tuned to heat water (in my microwave oven) and also the principally aluminium superstructure of the CM and the "tinfoil" outer shell of the LM, would not be overly troubled by microwaves in space were I travelling in such a vehicle. But what do I know? I keep putting foil-covered food in an oven and coming up with frozen dinners.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 17, 2011 7:00:21 GMT -4
Seriously, it's like none of them have realised that if there was "a conspiracy" then there must necessarily be only one conspiracy that must have a consistent set of objectives and reasons to exist, or else there were many conspiracies working parallel to each other, frequently necessarily with individuals in common, that never managed to get together to align all their "facts" and that's just insane.
Heck, just the fact that there is at least one conspiracy for each conspiracy theorist but exactly one Apollo record shared between everyone else should set off alarm bells for anyone coming to this from a neutral PoV.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 16, 2011 16:53:37 GMT -4
Hey, fattydash; my computer went totally screwy last night and I coincidentally post on the same bulletin board as you, therefore I'm going to randomly assign the blame to you; you hacked my computer, didn't you? Of course you did - your denials are merely a cover-story and any evidence you might present in your defence is clearly fabricated because you did it. Q.E.D.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 12, 2011 16:42:58 GMT -4
Of all the retractions that have occurred where I can see them, they all happened within a few tens of posts, or nearest equivalent in the appropriate medium; that is, generally when rational but ignorant people see a "documentary" like that execrable Fox production, they want the other half of the story, or at least to find out if there is another half, so they come to sites like this and are genuinely surprised by the breadth and depth of the expertise here having previously assumed that the witnesses and evidence presented was basically it. And so they rapidly realise they were being fed a line covered in juicy bait and were nearly reeled in.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 10, 2011 6:28:37 GMT -4
I never got to see the end of Threads. They were showing it in my "religion & politics" class in secondary school but some of the weaker-stomached kids complained about two thirds of the way through and it's basically never going to be on TV, nor is it still in print as far as I can determine.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:42:53 GMT -4
Your repeated attempt to justify your previous lack of citation with "but everyone else was doing it too" is noted.
If you want people to cite their claims, stop prevaricating about your own, and maybe ask them to do so; you might be surprised by the responses.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:31:22 GMT -4
If a bunch of "high level scientists" whatever that means, say the radiation environment is such-and-such and then the contractors see the numbers and go "whoa that's harsh. Tricky...but we'll figure something out" and then they proceed to do so and build functional hardware, why wasn't that hardware used?
Because the data those scientists fed them was wrong? Is that your claim?
Now show us why no-one noticed, in the intervening seventy or so years, that all their commercial satellites were falling out if the sky due to radiation doses in excess of what those "high level scientists" publicly stated to be present.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:22:03 GMT -4
I did not question the logistics of citing every quote, I questioned your patently false statement to the effect that you did not make a claim, when you clearly did.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 10:18:02 GMT -4
If it was "perfectly good" why wasn't it used?
More specifically, why were eight, not counting prototypes, built and not used?
If eight "perfectly good" lunar modules were built, each one fully capable of performing the mission for which it was designed (where design parameters included the radiation environment amongst many other things) why did no-one think "oh, hey we have entirely capable craft here, why not just stick some guys in them and go, instead of trying to come up with all these elaborate materials that must fool every astronomer, geologist and physicist on the planet for at least the next eighty years?"
Do you really not see how absurd your position is? In your world, someone built a working spacecraft, then someone else said "lets not use this working space craft because it won't work" and no-one saw the contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 7, 2011 9:34:16 GMT -4
I mentioned it as having been reported here and there as an explanation for Haise's difficulties. And yet you say you didn't make a claim? The bold text is a claim. You stated that something had been reported. That statement is a claim that the report was made. If you can't understand something as simple as that please leave this board, resign your alleged position as a doctor and go back to high school, where you can join a debate team and start again.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jul 3, 2011 18:21:33 GMT -4
ka9q: Not elevator; large bore waterslide without the water.
But, yeah time is a factor. I figure the LES would have to be it for the astronauts because I really don't see them getting out of the capsule hatch and into the tube, much less all the way down the tower, in a timely manner.
|
|