|
Post by bazbear on Feb 27, 2007 14:16:57 GMT -4
Rumsfeld said he couldn't account for $2.3 trillion - not all in the same year.Exactly, it's been over a very, very long time. Even using the figure suggested of 25% of their budget spent on unknown things and keeping the past budgets the same as 2001's (which they weren't) that'd work out as being lost over 44 Years!!!! In reality the money was likely spent over a much longer period of time. I believe that figure represents unjustified transactions (internal transfers of all sorts as well as payments to outside contractors) ie. bad accounting practices, DoD wide, and IIRC may indeed represent one fiscal year (obviously the same money get misaccounted for several times). I must be off to work, but I'll try to remember tonight to find the documentation about this.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jan 16, 2006 14:05:15 GMT -4
I might have to watch "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" now. Most people watch that for the Star Wars reference Star Wars reference? Something in the last two prequels (which I haven't seen)?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Dec 16, 2005 3:38:21 GMT -4
I think the U.S. CIA or DIA has it, as it must show where Saddam hid his WMD!
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jul 21, 2006 20:58:18 GMT -4
There are dry powders that take an imprint perfectly well like cement and talcum powder. This has been always my lament about this claim; I've known things like baby powder would do this as long as I can remember. But of course, it seems to HBers that "real world" experiences are only valid if they counter the historical facts.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Dec 8, 2005 18:32:01 GMT -4
That's what I would expect, but perhaps this is one of those deals where you have to wear the goggles for two weeks like those experiments in which the subjects wear inverting goggles for two weeks and become adapted to them to various degrees. Hmmm, maybe, but I suspect the way those goggles work, there just isn't enough color info reaching the eye to adapt to, in the way people do when wearing colored lensed goggles and the like. Using NVGs and LI type night vision devices (PVS-5As mainly) felt to me like I was watching slightly-to-very snowy B&W television, through a green filter. Maybe the brain eventually adopts the best analogs it can after a long enough period, such as the periods you've mentioned, but I'd have to think there's a bit of a different mental adaptive process involved.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Dec 7, 2005 23:23:35 GMT -4
The most revolutionary research I briefly studied was bi-colour full colour perception! Daniel Dennett made a passing reference to a study that showed that even if you wear night vision goggles, where everything is monochromatic green, that you start to get your color perception back. I find that hard to believe that Dennett has that right, but then again, I find it hard to believe square A and B are the same... I'd have to agree with you on this. I've worn NVGs for many hours at a time, and everything remains just as green as when you first put them on.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Feb 18, 2006 14:06:05 GMT -4
...or individual who claimed to track Apollo to, from, or on the Moon is [ lying | deluded | ignorant | stupid | insane ] (as are all the physicists, engineers, and historians). Don't forget the geologists
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 18, 2005 0:35:50 GMT -4
Hi Bob, I only have one email account that works and it would expose my personal information by google searching it. I prefer not to do it that way. I did explain all of this to the admin prior to starting the debate. There may be a way a thread or section could be open to only me while I draft it and then opened to the public. I've had this done for me on another board. I'm not asking for special treatment here but it would prevent responses until it's complete. I'm going to start working on completing the suit submission right now. But you ARE asking for special treatment. No one else uses this board as a public scratch pad to put together a theory. It's patently ridiculous to expect that people won't comment on your "draft" work when it obviously contains one fundamental error after another.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 18, 2005 0:26:03 GMT -4
Hi Bob, I only have one email account that works and it would expose my personal information by google searching it. I prefer not to do it that way. I did explain all of this to the admin prior to starting the debate. There may be a way a thread or section could be open to only me while I draft it and then opened to the public. I've had this done for me on another board. I'm not asking for special treatment here but it would prevent responses until it's complete. I'm going to start working on completing the suit submission right now. So you are incapable of creating a new "throw-away" Yahoo mail, MSN Hotmail, or other free e-mail account for what reason? You've spent countless hours arguing your unsupportable ideas, but you can't take 5 minutes to create a new e-mail address?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 17, 2005 23:37:47 GMT -4
To the forum: Will you please accept my apology for confusing the "space is cold" issue? My statement about previous "space is not cold" posts being incorrect was a case of me overstepping, severely, because I had not yet clearly explained what I was referring to in the word "cold". I don't want to drag that topic into this thread; I am simply addressing what has already been brought up. I'd rather not go down in forum history as "the guy who sided with Moon Man" on this issue, because I was doing precisely otherwise. The confusion comes from different (equally valid) operative definitions of "heat" and "cold", and my attempt to give insight into a very technical defintion set failed, miserably. It's okay, I think most of us knew how you meant it. If you could survive in space without a pressure suit, and were in shadow, I would think it would eventually subjectively feel quite cold, as your body radiated away heat (italics for MM, to remind him of the only thermodynamic process that would be involved).
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 17, 2005 23:08:19 GMT -4
Why the need for a space suit when it's not sunny out on the moon..? Since there is no sun to bake you why not just wear an oxygen tank and mask..? Because, if it's not sunny then the astronauts would cast a shadow and then we'd have 6 more weeks of winter. Thanks for the belly laugh, Tofu! ;D
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 17, 2005 15:11:45 GMT -4
Um, the name of this site is Apollohoax. This section of the board asks members to advance their claim to support the hoax theory. As soon as someone does just that they are classified as a troll. That's kind of odd, really. I advised you I was bringing new arguments to the hoax theory. I have done this. Just because my claims make mondo sense doesn't deem me to be a troll. Posting messages before the thread is even ready is what I consider to be a troll. Spamming every section asking people to be banned without addressing the issues raised in the thread is trolling. If you would prefer I leave the board just say so..? MM, you may have brought new ideas about a hoax (or at least one I had not seen before), but they've been shown to incorrect repeatedly...but that's not why you're a troll... The fact that you either choose to ignore these explanations (which frequently have included links to more authoritative sources, often original Apollo documents), can't fathom them, or just don't want to believe them, is not our fault...and that's not why you're a troll, either...You've been labeled a troll because you keep posting the same debunked opinions as if they were fact, no matter how many times your "evidence" has been sliced, diced, and jullianed. It's as simple as that MM.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 18, 2005 0:02:40 GMT -4
BA = Bad Astronomy. UT = Universe Today. They were separate boards until a few months ago, then merged to cut down administration effort. I have a theory on certain issues that would prove it to be a hoax. If people can debunk it, great, but I wish the insults or personal attacks would stop. It's human nature that one would want to strike back. I think I've done a pretty good job at avoiding that so far. The discrepencies on NASA's site that I've point out thus far, from my READING, have been ignored by everyone but Jay. Discrepencies do not automatically mean there's a hoax, MM! I could show you discrepencies between accounts in just about every historical event I've read about in any detail, covering subjects all the way from the battle of Gettysburg to the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. People do not have perfect memories, and people make honest mistakes. The personal attacks come from posters who's frustration levels over your apparent willful ignorance have reached the boiling point. I try to avoid that myself, but I do understand their frustration with you.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 15, 2005 1:52:20 GMT -4
Ah yes, we're back to Von Braun's SS connection. If you can't win the technology debate (and I'm using the word debate very loosely), just attack the character of some of the major players! Are you denying the claim I made..? My point is your claim has no bearing on Von Braun's technical expertise in engineering and rocketry.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 15, 2005 0:54:57 GMT -4
Ah yes, we're back to Von Braun's SS connection. If you can't win the technology debate (and I'm using the word debate very loosely), just attack the character of some of the major players!
|
|