|
Post by theteacher on Nov 14, 2011 17:13:42 GMT -4
try this, if you were standing on the moon, in a sheltered area where you did not see anything except space, can you tell me if you will see stars? I guess you already know the answer to that question yourself, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 14, 2011 17:10:21 GMT -4
Thank you for an answer on the temperature of 1191 degrees at the nozzle exit. this is the first straight answer given on this site. How is this not a straight answer?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 6, 2011 18:15:38 GMT -4
The video covers the invisibility of the propellants used, ... Your video would be more convincing, if you let the clip showing the ascent from the Moon run past the pitch-over, after which the burning of the propellants is clearly visible through the nozzle of the ascent stage.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Sept 14, 2011 16:42:01 GMT -4
I'd appreciate any reports of whether you can see the animation or not, and what software you are using. Works in Adobe Reader version 9.4.5.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 28, 2011 17:16:59 GMT -4
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me." Wasn't it Wade Frazier who said that? "I still find it amazing the footage of Armstrong’s leap was never mentioned in all the long years of debates. I must have seen it live in 1969, as did many millions of other people, but it was a forgotten feat. This evidence sealed it for me. Neil Armstrong performed that leap on the moon." Citation from www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Aug 27, 2011 16:52:43 GMT -4
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me." Wasn't it Wade Frazier who said that?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 23, 2011 21:12:05 GMT -4
While I do consider the law to be an intellectual field that demands considerable understanding of logic and evidence, it is a far cry from science. Science seeks the truth, wherever it leads, and that's the last thing most lawyers want. They pick a conclusion favorable to their client, seek only that evidence which supports it, and attempt to discredit any evidence that doesn't. Just like our hoax believer friends. - which reminds me of www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 23, 2011 17:22:18 GMT -4
I noticed some odd comparisons between fattydash and the classic poster Moon Man, that I think are indicative of a certain type of HB poster. First, the insistence on their professional credentials, without the willingness to actually detail them. All due respect, but this doesn't apply very well to moonman. He explicitly said the following: "I am not a scientist and never claimed to be, I do legal work".
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 14, 2011 19:47:35 GMT -4
All that...and no progress whatsoever. Oh yes. The troll has been fed...
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 9, 2011 16:16:37 GMT -4
No, I'm not going to put the time and effort here to start at square one all over again, here with individuals who likely have the predisposition to chant slogans and call names and make themselves annoying, but correct me if I'm wrong, Very well. You're wrong. This is your first post: You clowns better stick to the Apollo missions because you sound like totally mindless blithering idiots when you're trying to do your politically corrected kindergarten mocking - parroting what the talking heads on your tv set taught you to chant in lieu of actual sentient thought - of what you call "truthers" and "birthers" and "conspiracy theories".
Do you even know what the word "conspiracy" means? Read it slowly and carefully. When you have finished reading, read it again, remembering that it is your first post. This is your gambit. What kind of reaction did you expect to that kind of insulting behavior to people, you have never talked to before? So before you accuse anybody, please take a look at yourself.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 8, 2011 18:40:04 GMT -4
I think you like controversy, and do so to get a rise out of people. I'm having the same thoughts. Maybe we are at risk of troll feeding at this point.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2011 4:52:02 GMT -4
So I believe I am missing your point. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2011 3:14:43 GMT -4
Collins follows Armstrong with a statement that he could not recall seeing any stars/constellations at that time. That is not what he said. I already provided you with a transcription of the conversation, but you twist the wording. Collins does not refer "the time". He refers to "in the solar corona", which was the question. He does not refer to a "time" but to a location in the sky. Collins did not contradict Armstrong. He said " I don't remember seeing any [ in the solar corona]". How that can amount to a contradiction is beyond me. Yes, and anybody can dream up any meaning to it, he wants.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 6, 2011 18:57:40 GMT -4
I've probably mentioned this book before, but Robert Park (of the American Physical Society) wrote a book about fraudulent science and technology: "Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud". I actually bought and read the book on your endorsement, and it is a brilliant book, one of the best I have read on the subject. I can highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 6, 2011 16:57:31 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction proves Apollo to be far more bull than far out science. It is not necessary to know in detail, why the eyes work like they do. It is adequate to know how they work. In the same way it is possible to eat right on time, even if you do not know why the digestion system works as it does - obviously.
|
|