|
Post by abaddon on Nov 27, 2011 7:46:40 GMT -4
Playdor, why did the CIA representative speak exclusively in Russian?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 25, 2011 15:01:16 GMT -4
i analyzed film 1122D and posted the results Really? You already claimed zero expertise in photography. What analysis did you apply? so if this is wrong please detail to me what is going on in this film and where the lm is in relation to the cm. You will first have to identify what you think is "wrong". All I see is a series of stills of the LM ascending to rendezvous with the CSM, and only 5 at that. What is it that you find anomalous?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 18, 2011 21:00:43 GMT -4
The entire AGC could be replaced with a hobbyist grade microcontroller, the mainframes on the ground doing the "heaving lifting" of trajectory calculations could be replaced with a laptop, the 35 lb radios could be replaced with handheld units from Walmart and most of the rocket engines are either still in production or easily replaced with items still in production. Building the Apollo program from scratch would be stupid and overly complicated, but replicating the functionality with modern technology would be a cinch. Well, that's an excellent point. The whole PIC series would wipe all the AGC, but thats just progress.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 14, 2011 22:35:51 GMT -4
That is beyond cryptic. Whose cup is full? Full of what exactly? What exactly does the fullness of the cup signify? And for whom? What evidence exists for the fullness of the putative cup? Or even that such a cup exists? In the real world, your proposition has as much substance as a string vest.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 14, 2011 22:27:44 GMT -4
thank you bob b also are the fuels the same in both engines? How many times, and in how many ways must you be told yes? Are you in some way unable to read the responses posted in this thread?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 14, 2011 22:25:20 GMT -4
what cools the exhaust gas as it leaves the rocket engine in a vacuum? Boyles Law. Start there. Google is your friend. Thermodynamics is not.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 14, 2011 14:16:54 GMT -4
Would you let the all caps issue go I explained that it was a cut and pasted quote. I AM SORRY. Sure. Consider it forgotten. 60 minutes said that Armstrong had historically avoided interviews, so i went to the net to see any interviews posted. the only one that came up on youtube was the 1970 BBC interview. Gosh, so Neil's 2003 speaking tour of Europe was a mirage or something, as were the Q and A sessions at the end of each engagement. in watching it Armstrong stated, from cislunar space they could only see the blackness of space, the earth, sun and moon, and other crews may have reported some planets. As predicted. I asked the question here what Armstrong meant and i get deflections about adjusting eyes to night vision and why can't i understand that, and it takes so long to adjust, can't turn off the cabin lights, all the port holes allowing light in, rotation of the capsule, Apollo 11 crew were too busy to look out the window to sight see, blah blah blah. So let me get this straight. You concede that they were in direct sunlight all the way through the traverse of cislunar space. You concede that even when all five CM windows were facing away from the Sun, the CM interior was floodlit. You seem to believe that the crew were idly loafing around the CM with nothing to do other than pull down the window blinds, switch off the lights and wait to get dark adapted, simply to satisfy your bias, because they would not see anything from the CM that could not be better seen from Earth. It never ceases to amaze me that the HB crew believe that somehow the stars will look, in some undefined way, DIFFERENT from cislunar space. It is as if eyeball beats Hubble by magic. To imply these issues influenced Armstrong's answer belittles Armstrong and his crew. Nope, you are doing the belittling here. If they had intended to see if he could view the stars from cislunar space, Did they so intend? You present precisely zero evidence of such intention. he would ofhave over come these issues. If he had jumped through the imaginary hoops of your creation, then he possibly could have, but to what end? Just to satisfy you? he did not say they did not look. if you can't determine what he meant by this interview, just say it. if you can give me the science It has been handed to you on a plate throughout this very thread. It is no ones fault but yours that you fail to understand it. What you have here is a resource. A fund of knowledge. A group who will patiently take the time and effort to explain to you whichever issue you don't get. Don't turn and poop on their doorstep.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 10:17:45 GMT -4
so while the space craft was in cis-lunar inter-space, the port hole always faced the sun? If Armstrong had looked out the port hole when it was faced away from the sun, would he have seen stars or not? The CM had 5. You knew this? Apparently not. Here you go: www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/apolloSpacecraftWindows.pdfNot to mention, the CM had lights inside.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 4:14:37 GMT -4
Venus thank you --Cislunar ok now this. sorry about the caps, this was a cut and paste. BBC SHOW "THE SKY AT NIGHT" 1970, PATRICK MOORE INTERVIEWS NEIL ARMSTRONG PATRICK MOORE: "CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE SKY ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE FROM THE MOON?" NEIL ARMSTRONG: "THE SKY IS DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CISLUNAR INTER-SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN, ALTHOUGH SOME REPORTS SEEING PLANETS…" What does Neil Armstrong mean ? All CAPS do not add weight to your argument. What Neil is referring to is that in the full light of the sun, both cameras and the human eye contract such that stars cannot be seen or imaged. This is elementary physics.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 3:44:54 GMT -4
sorry... i didn't intend to hurt any feelings. can anyone tell me what Armstrong meant in a interview on "the sky at night" with Patrick Moore BBC 1970 Armstrong was talking about the space between the earth and the moon. he used a term that sounded like "sisteller inter-space" i can not find sisteller or systeller or other variations i have thought of. Cislunar is the word. Broadly speaking, it refers to space between earth and moon.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 2:05:18 GMT -4
What do you think I've done in my two decades as a space systems engineer? On the one hand, I am also an engineer. On the other, I would give my right leg to be involved in a space project. I hate you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 2:00:27 GMT -4
In a word, Watergate. Your "ebil gubbmint" couldn't even cover up a burglary. Heck, there are a lot more minor things than Watergate that the US government was unable to successfully cover up. The fact is, governments fail at keeping secrets for any length of time. It isn't difficult to look at anything in history that a government has obviously tried to keep secret and marvel at exactly how little time it was actually a secret. That combined with actual science should show anyone willing to look at things with an open mind that Apollo could not have been faked. Alan Turing, Bletchley House, and Enigma spring to mind.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Nov 13, 2011 1:16:23 GMT -4
I can't begin to prove any point i am trying to make. That, in and of itself, should tell you something. This is rocket science, and you are clearly admitting that you do not understand it. All i can say is that i feel after looking at the Apollo landings, that there are so many questionable things that it just finally became obvious that the landing on the moon in 1969 was impossible and is just a made up story. You "feel"? Science does not work that way. Science deals in facts and reality. Arguments from incredulity do not hold water, and argument from incredulity is all this is. You are unable to understand it, therefore you decide it must be impossible. Understand well that your cognitive limitations do not apply to everyone else. Your feelings, whatever they may be, carry precisely 0 scientific weight. look you wouldn't be here yourself if you were 100% sure, why would you bother with fools. Because truth has intrinsic value. I, and most everyone else here are 100% sure, because the science behind Apollo is demonstrably correct. Please do not have the arrogance to decide what any members motivation may be to participate in this forum. The problem is there's too many questions and no satisfactory answers. No. There are answers. It is no-ones fault but yours if you are unable to comprehend them. There are correct answers, many of which you have been given already, but choose to ignore. Pick one at a time, and it will be dealt with. A scatter gun approach is not your friend, it is known as a Gish Gallop. maybe there is one huge influence on our thought processes that make the difference here. The only influence at work here is science and reason. answer me this truthfully You have already had truthful answers, they just disagreed with your bias. Would the American government ever tell a false story? Don't know, don't care. I don't live in the US, so your "ebil gubbmint" actions are pretty irrelevant to me. You do realise that the US represents less than 5% of the world, right? Apollo happened. Get over it. Would the American government lie to its citizens Same answer as above. if you answer yes that it does, then all we have to do is negotiate as to how big a lie they would tell and could get away with it. In a word, Watergate. Your "ebil gubbmint" couldn't even cover up a burglary. For an instant... if they lied about the moon landings, how easy do you think it would be to prove it a lie. Fairly easy. They couldn't fake the launch, telemetry recorded from hostile nations, friendly nations and amateurs, the film and photos, the 800lbs of moon rock, the LRO photos, the list goes on. now think of this we captured German rocket technology say 1945 1957 - 12 years to just put a satellite into orbit 1961 - 4 more years to put a man in space 1961-1966 : 16 manned mission / docking 3 times / 3 missions with a space walk. that's it 1969 - 21st manned space mission we land on the moon. the leap is just too great, with too many unproven technologies. The Mercury and Gemini programs were done in LEO to test the capability and iron out any problems building up to a lunar mission. Did you think they were just larking about? Do you think space exploration is without risk? Do you think the crew of Apollo 1 went to their fiery graves to maintain the hoax? they had to lie, Americans would have been crushed if after setting this a national goal, to discover that the goal was not possible may have been a crushing blow to American society. they had to lie. and because they lied they can't change the story. Did they? I think not. Science agrees with me. Present some, or any scintilla of evidence of fakery that stands up on it's own merit. Sorry for your delusion, but the actual evidence says otherwise. I begin to suspect you have seen some poor TV program or website with a good deal of spin that has convinced you that science doesn't work. In which case your computer should vanish in a puff of illogic. figure it out for your self. I have. They went. You most certainly are. However, you can redeem yourself. Here, there are contributors who actually design and build spacecraft, and who will take the time to explain any aspect of Apollo to you in exhaustive detail, with copious references. Do not abuse this resource, these people do this free gratis out of a desire for truth.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Oct 30, 2011 7:31:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Oct 21, 2011 12:45:55 GMT -4
I haven't quite dared to check out P1K on JREF when he's talking about evolution. Has he discovered that the Leaky's field notes have a 200 m discrepancy in them somewhere? Or that the Beagle shouldn't have been able to find the Galapagos? Oh, it's much more technical than that, delving into chromosomes and such. All done in the usual wall-o-text style. He has had his posterior handed to him several times. For some odd reason he relies on research from the 60's, as though none had happened since. He is also cheerleading for Anders Lindman in the CERN is hiding something thread.
|
|