|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:53:42 GMT -4
OK my time's almost up. See you in a day or so, Mods permitting
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:52:33 GMT -4
I have moved your photograph and the comments that followed it to a hidden section of the forum. Once you wrap up existing arguments I will bring it back. Evidence ruled inadmissible then? I thought there was an unusually long pause after I posted it...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:50:48 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics Common sense, observation rather than just measurement and esoteric calculation Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:37:35 GMT -4
i have another piece of evidence i want to introduce first. NO! Respond to our questions first. I will ban you if you start any new topics before following through with your existing obligations.Its your forum do as you wish
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 17:44:56 GMT -4
Look I am sorry I can't be around all the time. I have read all posts since last visit and will respond. i have another piece of evidence i want to introduce first.
back in a few mins
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 14, 2010 9:07:55 GMT -4
Perhaps you can explain how a probe dangling from the leg of a self supporting rocket can cut a deep groove in a surface on which the feet of the lander make no indentation? Umm, when I look at photos AS11-40-5917, AS11-40-5918, AS11-40-5920, AS11-40-5925, and AS11-40-5926, I see evidence of the Eagle's footpads making indentations in the lunar surface, yet you claim there are none. Why? Can you not see the effect? I guess the difference between the probe and the footpad and the effect they have on the lunar surface is a little like the difference the sharp end and the back of a spade make on earthly soil. Have you considered that? I will grant you this one appears to show indentation, but this one appears to show an attempt to anchor the foot on the ground by piling material against it, judging by the shadow of the foot the other pics show very little that is conclusive
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 14, 2010 9:00:30 GMT -4
What to make of the posts above mine? Do they contribute to the debate? This is not a debate, rodin. To have a debate, both sides have to engage. You are steadfastly refusing to do so, avoiding direct questions that have been asked of you, ignoring answers to questions you have asked, and throwing more and more into the pot in the hope of tripping someone up somewhere. Answer the questions that have already been put to you. I am unaware of any question I have not addressed to some extent. It is possible I have not duplicated my responses across all boards. Perhaps you could produce a list of say five points you want answered now, and you can answer my questions about the Lunar surface
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 14, 2010 8:53:12 GMT -4
I looked on this page What to make of the posts above mine? Do they contribute to the debate? Contributions and answers are not the same. Keep asking and unless I have missed it, no answer. How big and how staffed was a vacuum chamber? Start with that simple one. We then expand onto you saying its filmed on earth and as a chamber needs connection to the outside world, how was that achieved? I have made no claim anywhere that the entire mission was filmed in a chamber, using wires, slowed down footage etc. I have said that these were all available and could be used as an when and scenes demanded it There is no doubt the LEM and immediate environs could be staged in the chamber we know about. Horizon distance can be an illusion. It is also possible the LEM can be simply outside on Earth for some scenes. I suspect the Rover shots were outside I asked the DIF posse to explain the waves clearly visible on the ground here. I drew a couple of red rectangles to highlight particularly obvious areas though the feature is widespread in that shot. No answer is forthcoming as yet.
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 14, 2010 8:04:18 GMT -4
Rodin, you going to run away from the questions asked again? I looked on this page What to make of the posts above mine? Do they contribute to the debate?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 14, 2010 7:25:17 GMT -4
Rodin: Are you too lazy to go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, find the correct photo and look up its caption? With Apollo 11 there is only one film to search and there is a link to thumbnails at the top of the Reality of Apollo section here. The number of the photo is AS11-40-5921 and its caption says: AS11-40-5921 (OF300) ( 1374k or 248k ) 110:48:05 Buzz took this photo of the area under the Descent Stage to document the effects of the engine plume. A radial pattern of scouring is readily visible. Note the gouge made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) strut at contact. The fact that the spacecraft landed directly over this gouge mark is a clear indication that, as is discussed after 102:45:32, the LM was drifting left (south) during the final moments of the landing.You have cropped most of the deep gouge mark out of your photo. In the full version I see a depression running in the general direction of the gouge mark. Perhaps it is natural, perhaps it's a result of the gouge mark and the engine plume, perhaps it's both. The lunar surface isn't exactly a bowling green and the LM didn't come straight down, so we should expect to see all sorts of patterns from the plume. We can even see the plume changing in some of the landing films. Have you watched any of them in anything better than a You Tube video? What exactly is your problem with the photo? Please describe it in a grown-up manner. If you can, of course. Perhaps you can explain how a probe dangling from the leg of a self supporting rocket can cut a deep groove in a surface on which the feet of the lander make no indentation?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 5, 2010 14:49:58 GMT -4
To make a solid core of rock? Please tell me you are joking. rodin does not joke. NASA "could" have invented a machine to weld the rocks together inside the core. melting rock is not so hard from the WTC
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 5, 2010 14:32:23 GMT -4
You have to wonder why this thread didn't just go quiet during my absence...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 5, 2010 14:30:33 GMT -4
We may find out soon enough - rodin has posted on Icke that he will come back on here with more evidence. The fact that he has completely ignored the previous debunking is going to put him into the "troll" category again. Most assuredly. He seems to have slipped into the familiar mode of staying away for extended periods hoping his previous failed claims will go stale and he won't be held accountable for them. Then we he comes back with new claims, any who try to hold him to the abandoned discussions can be accused of ignoring his "new and better" arguments. It's fairly obvious now that Rodin has no desire to have a serious discussion of Apollo history. No its just I can't be everywhere at once and I can't spend 24/7 on Apollo
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 5, 2010 14:28:05 GMT -4
Well now lets look under A11 I can see 2 grains here running at right angles. What caused this my denigrating chums?
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Sept 20, 2010 13:22:04 GMT -4
Looks to me like the nozzle from one of the LM's thrusters ... of which it had 16(?) to control the craft's attitude during the landing. It is dark because (as you can see from the shadow of the LM on the ground) we are on the side of the LM away from the sun and therefore in shadow. Have a look at this. Yes it must be thanks Blown up it does look to follow ground contours as you would expect from a shadow.
|
|