|
Post by abaddon on Aug 31, 2010 17:14:42 GMT -4
Okay, denying it as a landing zone makes a certain amount of sense, though using it as a first landing base for an invasion kind of doesn't. I'm just saying, you know, the Soviet Union already had a pretty secure landing base for a European war. Thats fine. As I said, I have no clue as to it's validity. The Idea was that if a sudden Soviet blitzkrieg ocurred, then the U.S. by the time it assembled a response would of necessity, be landing on the western fringes of Europe. It may well be another example of cold war lunacy. Everyone was paranoid then. Even us.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 19:47:23 GMT -4
Not a member over there just an observer.
Fetzer is so far off the deep end, the Marianis trench looks like a puddle.
I am amazed that a PhD would behave so, spamming the same dang post again and again.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 19:02:39 GMT -4
Like a good film director can't fix that? 2001 was magical.... Nope. It was groundbreaking at the time, but not convincing. First we have the normal flaws in any kind of such filmmaking. There are visible seams in the projection screen. The actors in the space-station scene can be seen walking "uphill" and "downhill" where the floor is curved. We see the Pan Am pilot "hunch over" the seat in zero gravity. And we have the things Kubrick simply saw fit to do differently. Even though detailed photographs of the lunar surface were available to him, Kubrick preferred the sharp, angular landscape seen in previous artistic renditions. He knew it was wrong, and he did it his way on purpose because it looked better to him. We see a moving starfield behind Discovery. Kubrick knew stars wouldn't be visible in photography if the spacecraft were properly exposed. He also knew the starfield wouldn't appear to move, even if it were visible. These are concessions he made to cinematic necessity; it is difficult to convey the impression of motion unless there is a background against which motion can be visible. Filmmakers have generally followed this convention ever since, and even before. Kubrick directed his actors to move slowly in "zero gravity" because it fit into his overall notion of pacing for the film. Kubrick intentionally paced the film very slowly in order to heighten the tension. He admitted himself that the film could only be seen once with that approach; subsequent viewings would seem tedious. According to Rodin, Stanley has been flying the LRO ten years after his death, so if I were you, I would set very low expectations for his response, and expect them not to be met either.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 18:56:17 GMT -4
I grew up with the absolute certainty that there were nuclear weapons pointed at my hometown, or at least its reasonable vicinity. But why would the Soviet Union need a landing place in case of a European war? The Soviets would want to deny it's use to any U.S force as a landing zone. I have no idea if it was true, but people believed it
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 15:24:31 GMT -4
As I've said, I accept "the Cold War was faked" as the only conspiracy theory of my knowledge where "too young to remember" is a realistic explanation of its belief. There's just so much of the Cold War which was part of everyone's life every day. I don't understand how anyone who was there can believe it. Then again, I don't understand how anyone who wasn't can, either. I have no idea how true it is, but it was reputed that there were nuclear targets here in little ole Ireland from both sides as it was a logical landing place in the event of a european war since we are the westernmost part of Europe. Even if untrue, it was still a worry at the time. ETA oops random extra word deleted
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 12:36:58 GMT -4
Makes me wonder if Rodin is young enough to NOT remember it.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 12:10:37 GMT -4
Hmmm, perhaps I should have read more closely. I'm not sure if the Cold War is the reason people are so irrationally scared of radiation and nuclear power. I always thought it was all the bad press the few accidents have gotten and a general fear of the unknown. Well it's a tough question, especially for those of a green persuasion. After all they spent a lot of effort fighting against nuclear power, but now it seems the logical way to go.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 11:55:00 GMT -4
On the other hand, without the cold war, would our understanding of nuclear power be what it is today? The US and USSR did a lot of research into nuclear that possibly wouldn't have been deemed necessary without the war. Fair point. The nuclear industry wouldn't be where it is today without the cold war.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 11:49:39 GMT -4
I for one really wish the cold war was faked, because then we'd have nuclear power all over and this global warming thing wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. What? Are you arguing that nuclear power is causing global warming? Even the most rabid pro-warmists admit that nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gasses. Are you arguing that the Cold War caused global warming? And if it were faked then they wouldn't have built as many real tanks, planes, etc. that emit greenhouse gasses? Or are you trying to say something entirely different? I think you got hold of the wrong end of the stick there, Jason. If I read correctly, the suggestion is that more nuclear power usage would reduce carbon emissions.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 30, 2010 11:17:22 GMT -4
Sounds like an interesting game PeterB. [Peeks out of secret gamers closet] One of the most spine tingling events for me was the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event I was sure would never happen in my lifetime. After all the years of posturing and threats, it seemed unreal to see it happen in front of your own eyes. I was glued to the news. And before Rodin claims it was fake, my sister was there. She lives in Germany. She even has a piece of the actual wall. She is even friends with some people who came over the wall, or under, or through. I have met them. Some of them have family who didn't get out, and are missing. So don't give me that bogus "fake cold war" claim. And while we are at it, here is a question for you, is there any conspiracy theory which you DON'T believe?
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 29, 2010 9:49:58 GMT -4
Nonetheless, getting back on topic, I think it very relevant that Rodin subscribes to a wild panoply of conspiracies.
IMHO, we are being taken for a ride here. This is the iceberg method of presenting an argument.
Rodin presents an apparently rational line of argument, but the other 9 tenths of woo are just waiting under the waterline.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 29, 2010 9:44:05 GMT -4
I must strongly suggest skipping the "muzak" part and go straight for the voting section. Given that the songs have nothing to do with the voting that's a good plan. Well, I consider it to be one of the lowest common denominator forms of "TeeVee"
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 27, 2010 14:11:27 GMT -4
If you want to see collusion and conspiracy in an effort to influence the outcome of a contest try watching the 'Eurovision Song Contest' some time, or perhaps not. I must strongly suggest skipping the "muzak" part and go straight for the voting section.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 22, 2010 14:51:21 GMT -4
Actually based on the number of questions they have asked about easily available information I don't think Rodin is familiar with Google... There is no need to be quite THAT snarky. Rodin has shown some desire to learn, and some people just prefer to ask human people questions. Got to differ here, he will not look up easily found data at all. Thats just lazy.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Aug 22, 2010 10:10:19 GMT -4
Makes sense except that dishes for things like satellite tv don't move. They stay in one spot. But I suppose that's because there are multiple satellites that stream tv to the dish so there's always a constant flow. Nope, they are aiming at a satellite in geostationary orbit. If you put a satellite at about 25,000 miles altitude its orbital period takes 23 hours 56 mnutes, the same time as it takes Earth to revolve on its axis. That is geosynchronous (literally 'same time as Earth'). If the orbital plane is coincident with the Earth's equator then the satellite remains fixed over a point on the Earth's surface, which means any receiver can be fixed in one orientation and will always be pointing at that satellite. That does not materially alter the point that in order for a radio dish to receive communication from the Moon it must be aimed at the Moon. If you watch the longer EVA transmissions you will hear them talking about 'switchover', which was the point at which the main receiving station on Earth changed as the Earth's rotation carried one out of line of sight with the Moon. The Apollo 11 EVA was not received by an American tracking station because the Moon had set over the USA by the time the astronauts stepped out. This 'conspiracy' therefore has to spread to Australia, since that's where the transmissions were picked up, by a dish that was aimed at the Moon. Just to preempt a suggestion that may be coming. No, geostationary satellites could not be used to fake the telemetry and so on. The moon is not geosynchronous.
|
|