|
Post by bazbear on Jan 26, 2006 16:10:16 GMT -4
After all, we ALREADY hired Grumman et al Yep, you got it; we're supposed to believe organizations like Grumman, North American Aviation, General Electric, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), AC Electronics, Rocketdyne, Thiokol, RCA, Lockheed, Northrop Ventura, Westinghouse, Bell Aerosystems, Hamilton Standard, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney etc. etc. etc. were all involved, and no one has ever come forward. And oh yeah, Nixon's behind it of course...his people couldn't pull off simple buglary without getting caught...but they could buy off or scare tens or hundreds of thousands of people into keeping quiet for nearly 37 years! Don't ya love the HBers ability to selectively and thoroughly suspend disbelief?
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Jan 18, 2006 14:04:54 GMT -4
.what will annoy you guys is when the Chinese with their high resolution cameras won't find a trace of a landing,funny how they decided to land only in a particular part of the moon,in the span of three years?so little boy back from playing spaceship?how was your mission to mars ?tell us about it? And if the Chinese do photograph the landing sites, and everything is where it should be, I'm sure you'll go with plan B, something along the lines of NASA planting the artifacts robotically, or maybe that the USA bribed the PRC into faking the photos etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 18, 2005 23:04:56 GMT -4
I was banned for claiming the capsule was in free fall from 200,000 feet. It was actually in free fall from 80,000 feet. Hardly a reason to ban someone. I couldn't care less anyway. I would love to debate the landing gear and I hope someone starts a thread. To believe they would only use 4 legs is a joke. If one failed to open the mission was ruined. I'll bet you the new moon landed has more then four legs. If you truly believe that is why you were banned, then you are either a fool or totally deluded. And here you go again, you're now an expert on the ideal number of legs the lander needed; never mind you have nothing to go on but your own hunch....again.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 18, 2005 1:05:53 GMT -4
I'm just dying to see an honest, relatively intelligent, and truth seeking HB I've actually known a couple, but with my guidance and a huge amount of help from both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy sites (thanks again, Jay and Phil), they are now "AB"s
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 15, 2005 13:20:14 GMT -4
I pointed that out to him several pages ago, but he's still using the +/-250 deg F argument. He's too busy writing his next post to actually read any of our replies. Wrong. I read every message and try to reply to everyone. The temps have no been proven as of yet. Only opinions on the temps have been posted. Opinions are not fact. ....but your own absolutely unsupported opinion should be taken as fact. Hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 15, 2005 2:36:25 GMT -4
Folks, I gave my reasoning in my submission. I will not spend my life answering questions, like why are you cold on a ski lift, etc. etc. Please provide a reply to my submission and state why I am wrong on each issue with supporting links, if you have them. If you claim it is not cold in space please prove it. If you claim it's not +250 or -250 degree F but some other temperature value please prove it. If you claim the batteries in the descent module would not have be drained or destroyed by the 2 1/2 hours of 2600 - 4000 degree F heat produced by the thruster please prove it, or at least attempt to prove it. If you can explain why the ascent module had two more batteries than the descent module please do so. If you dispute the battery life-cycle please provide your proof. etc. etc. Some of you are applying the same double standard BA applies, and probably because your from that board. I have to prove everything and you don't. You ask a million questions and answer nothing and then claim your right so we must move on to the next issue. That's not how a debate works. This is not question period. I've provided a submission with links and pictures and if a rebuttal with evidence is not provided then I win and there is no reason to debate the other issues are the great lunar lie have been proven. It's been explained to you time and time again why your points are incorrect. You seem to have no grasp of any of the sciences or technology involved (and I have to believe you're determined not to learn anything more about them), but you can just blow off these thorough explainations because they don't "sound right" to you. Your acting like just another typical HBer, Moon Man, not that I find that a big surprise. You might just as well quit now and claim victory over the Dark Lords of The NASA Secret
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Nov 13, 2005 22:07:16 GMT -4
I believe in discussing #1 we will find a need to define what is meant by "vacuum" and whether the Lunar environment qualifies. I do suggest, however, that we do not reference any BAUT discussions, and start from a clean slate. I'm at a loss what purpose doing this all over again here at Apollo Hoax forum serves, but I suppose it's a fair request to avoid bringing up the BAUT thread (to avoid cross-referenced forum confusion, if nothing else).
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Oct 20, 2005 14:01:06 GMT -4
T So wait, does this mean that Bush just wants us to go up there to get him some cheese to go with his pretzels? I think the secret service banned all pretzels from the White House; I've heard a rumor that they even strip search Rove to insure he's not sneaking any into the residence.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Oct 19, 2005 22:04:59 GMT -4
I was in the Army in the 80's when someone in the five sided puzzle palace decided that the PRC-77 backpack radio would no longer be refered to as the "prick seventy-seven", and would henceforth be called the "perk seventy-seven". Of course, everyone continued using the "prick" moniker anyway.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Dec 11, 2005 1:23:16 GMT -4
True Kos ;D But it's difficult to convince some people otherwise No no, I see they are right now; the conspiracy is BIGGER than even the HBers thought! Since rockets don't work in space, there must be tens of millions of people directly in on it, what with all the "space fairing" nations on earth these days.On a side note, I wonder who's on the short list to film the PRC's moon landing hoax? ;D edeted fer spellin'
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Sept 9, 2005 4:20:51 GMT -4
I had four college students tell me today how foolish I was to believe a man could land on the moon. Yet these 4 idiots coudn't explain fact one about the satelite radio or GPS in their car; or even a very basic idea how they worked GRRRRR ... then again one of them was as bald a billiard ball and had a swatstika tattoed on his arm.
I think even Sibrel would be wary of kids like these.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 23, 2005 23:34:55 GMT -4
Nah, the HBers (and CTers) are the masters of ad hominem attacks, not anyone here. I'm just a layman, with no more than a H.S. education (and some vocational training, but the only pertinent field that would relate to in any way to Apollo would be my time as a commo tech in the US Army), but I just can't understand how it's not obvious which side of this debate has the evidence on their side. TURN ON YOUR BRAINS, FOLKS! That's not an attack, it's a plea!
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on Aug 20, 2005 21:37:34 GMT -4
|
|
|
BS FAQs
Aug 16, 2005 3:58:28 GMT -4
Post by bazbear on Aug 16, 2005 3:58:28 GMT -4
I guess it depends on what you mean by "invent". As an engineer, I don't consider it invented until it works, and for the laser that wasn't until 1960. Until you have a working model you can't bounce laser beams off the moon. Fair enough, and I was certainly not implying anyone was bouncing lasers off the moon back then.
|
|
|
BS FAQs
Aug 16, 2005 0:30:11 GMT -4
Post by bazbear on Aug 16, 2005 0:30:11 GMT -4
No. Lasers weren't invented in the 1950s. A very small nitpick, Jay, the laser was actually invented at Bell Labs in 1958 (though I don't believe anyone actually built a functional model until 1960).
|
|