|
Post by gwiz on Jun 15, 2011 12:02:38 GMT -4
A quick check of the usual sources don't mention this interesting fact , do you have any links? There's a bit about it here, and it's briefly mentioned in Hall and Shayler's "Soyuz", which is the best English-language book on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 21, 2011 11:39:33 GMT -4
Has anyone here been taken yet? Enquiring minds want to know Apparently some footballer has vanished from view in the press, leaving behind just the initials CTB.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 28, 2011 5:07:02 GMT -4
Anyone see the April 1st spaghetti tree harvest? I know people who fell for that. Do you know how old that one is? Didn't the BBC do it back in the 1950s or so? Do you know how old some of us are? I certainly saw it, presented by Richard Dimbleby.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 13, 2011 7:21:50 GMT -4
I gather that when he said he would find Apollo plausible if we could show that more than 20% of the samples have been scientifically examined, he was lying.
It took me a bit of effort to find the link showing over 40% of the Apollo 11 samples were handed out to scientists soon after the mission, and he never responded.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 10, 2011 11:16:22 GMT -4
I am not saying that 20% would prove anything, but that is enough to convince me. I can't lay my hand on it at the moment, but I did once see a list of the initial distribution of the Apollo 11 samples to the scientific community. I'm pretty sure it met your criteria, with some researchers getting as much as 1 kg. Another thing for you to research if you're interested. Edit to add: Here it is, scroll down to the last item.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 9, 2011 7:15:27 GMT -4
They don't identify what sample(s) of the samples were studied and by whom those sample(s) were identified, they just cite researches that analyzed some sample(s) of the samples. Every sample entry has a list of scientific papers published about it. Why don't you read a few of these and see what they say, then? If you are really interested in this subject, do your own research, don't rely on us. If you are really, really, interested, get qualified as a geologist and apply to analyse the samples yourself.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Apr 8, 2011 14:48:49 GMT -4
Try this link: www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/Click on a few samples at random and you will find plenty of examples of detailed scientific study of sizeable rocks.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 23, 2011 6:28:28 GMT -4
Just to add my congratulations on an excellent piece of research. It's yet another case of the more you look into the Apollo historical record, the more unexpected confirmation you find.
Those faker guys never missed a thing! Fancy back in that era predicting the cloud cover for the whole Earth days in advance for the crew's transparencies!
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 2, 2011 13:12:05 GMT -4
kimchi jjigae does not exist. At the very least, he cannot prove 100% that he is not a spambot.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 7, 2011 13:42:01 GMT -4
It's changed a lot over the years. When I started out in the aerospace industry in the 1960s, there were engineers around without degrees, they'd come up through the company apprentice system plus sub-degree courses at technical colleges. Some of them were only a few years older than me. By the time I retired, most new starters had at least a masters and some had PhDs.
I would not claim that those later ones were better engineers than the earlier ones without degrees. In particular, someone straight out of university always has a lot to learn on the job.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 26, 2011 10:54:44 GMT -4
The sun is behind him, he's standing next to the LM, so both suit and LM will be reflecting light into that area.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 24, 2011 10:43:56 GMT -4
I first came across the hoax when someone showed me a magazine article about it and challenged me to refute all the claims, which I did.
I'm an aerospace engineer (retired), I lived throgh the Apollo years, and I find the claim that my contempories in the US were incapable of getting to the moon rather insulting to my profession. Apart from that, I've always had a bit of an interest in weird beliefs, and derive a lot of amusement from them.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 19, 2011 10:03:46 GMT -4
The documents that list the anomalies are the Mission Reports. They are available from NASA's report server or from Bob Andrepont's reborn list here, which is easier to search.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 12, 2011 6:14:45 GMT -4
If you exclude the USA. To quote your link: More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.Yes, and the point is that means the conclusions were dependant on a single data point. If you exclude the USA, it's difficult to find another western democracy where guns are so freely available, you've got nothing to compare with more rational societies. Having a gun to hand makes it a lot easier for anyone who gets angry to cause a violent death. Other countries with high gun ownership have regulations about keeping them locked up or only available at gun clubs. But you were arguing the former, and that example shows that it doesn't work. It wasn't the slaves who freed themselves from central government with guns. It was the central government taking away the southerners' perceived right to have slaves in spite of the southerners' gun ownership.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 11, 2011 12:41:36 GMT -4
Gwiz, that section concludes that the correlation between gun ownership and violent deaths is weak. If you exclude the USA. To quote your link: More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.We have gangs and an illegal drug trade in the UK too. What we don't have is a situation where pretty well anybody can buy a gun with few or no quesions asked. We have half the violent death rate of the USA, and that extra death rate in the USA is composed almost entirely of gun-related deaths. How does gun ownership limit central government, anyway? What do you do, threaten to shoot the taxman unless he leaves you alone?
|
|