|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 7:13:05 GMT -4
Ex: I will not slow down from my ~1.6 km/s (~ 3500 mph) speed when I get closer to the Moon's surface Wouldn't it, in fact, speed up? Yeah, that's what I briefly thought... but I've been bitten badly by orbital mechanics before.. I once thought it 'wasn't rocket science'.. but I was wrong! Paging Bob B, Bob B...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 7:08:06 GMT -4
What Luke Said.
Read twice, then repeat if desire to start new threads persists...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 7:03:05 GMT -4
There was absolutely nothing wrong with your post, Gillian.
Indeed, Vincent would be much the wiser if he re-read it, and took on what was sage advice..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 6:55:42 GMT -4
The images come from google images. I cannot control their size... I notice a severe hostile nature displayed by you. What is your opinion on the Apollo Missions? It's a VERY reasonable request, and I agree with it. And could you quote the part you found 'severely hostile'?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 6:53:00 GMT -4
Why don't you simply talk to him about how you were converted, and why..?
Is he perhaps motivated to believe the hoaxers simply because he dislikes authority and just wants another thing to add to his 'justification list'? If so, good luck with changing his mind.
And to be perfectly frank, it requires a fair bit of knowledge of the requisite topics (engineering, physics, photography, space sciences, general science) to be able to discern reality from bull****. If he doesn't have that and is unwilling to learn you'll be pushing it uphill. If he does have the required nous, it should be pretty easy - refer to my first Q above..
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 11, 2011 6:51:59 GMT -4
So what research have you done on the topic?
How did you find this one doctor, and exactly how did you approach him? Why not post a copy of the emails you sent?
Because if I was such a doctor, I would be unwilling to spend much time answering you unless it was clear to me that you were putting in the effort. (Especially if I googled you, and saw your initial posts here at this forum....)
The radiation issue isn't that difficult to research, but it does require that you understand the types of radiation, and the effects on our biology. Do you think that a professional in the field will have the time to 'walk you through' all that, before he even begins to discuss Apollo?
If you have specific questions, why not just ask them here?
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 9, 2011 6:59:04 GMT -4
I'm appalled at what they no longer teach in computer science and engineering curricula, my two primary fields. It's not that they're pushing older topics out of the way in order to make room for new thought. It's that they're transforming the programs into something that's closer to vocational training that a science education. Clearly Jarrah White has an interest in science and technology, but it doesn't appear he has much aptitude for it. It would be a shame if he wasted the money and a spot in the university enrollment just to try to give his hoax claims more undeserved credibility. From my years in college teaching I can say that Jarrah strikes me as a "gunner." These are the students who are utterly convinced they already know the material and spend the class time arguing with the teacher rather than learning what the class has to offer. If that's the case, then my dismay extends not only to Jarrah but to those unfortunate enough to share a class with him. Frankly, I doubt that there is any truth to the claim that he is doing a BSc. He would *have* to know what would be likely to happen as soon as the other students and his lecturers discovered his 'prior work' - he would be a laughing stock. I couldn't imagine any lecturer putting up with him arguing any topic once aware of the tripe he has posted on youtube. This is simply another part of his game, imo. (BTW, I see his 'send me to the moon' campaign has, inexplicably, stalled at $376.93 - oh well, not far to go...)
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 9, 2011 6:45:48 GMT -4
..being a pro photographer I would certainly like to pick your brain one of these days! Careful! - given the way CTists and HBs claim all sorts of professional skills (Hi, Fattydash!), I think the term 'pro' might be an insult..! I don't do photography commercially any more, in fact even when I did, it was mostly just on weekends (for the weddings and portraits) and then some contract work for tourism. I gave it up because i found I was no longer enjoying what was my favorite hobby! so nowadays I'm doing it strictly for fun again, mainly landscapes and cityscapes with a current interest in panoramas. But I've been around cameras and film since the early sixties with a strong bent towards understanding all the technicalities. I've now thoroughly embraced digital and have even been known to use cameras on automatic settings .. occasionally... Anyway, feel free to pm me, start a new thread, or just fire away here. And if that was a hint, yes, I love investimagating and analysing stuff, so if you want opinions... Added PS - Kiwi sounds like he has more experience than me , and there's also GonetoPlaid who has done some superb ontopic analysis - lots of *very* talented people here...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 5, 2011 19:04:38 GMT -4
Tell me, chriz, did you ever use those Hasselblads without their viewfinders? Many HBs insist you can't take any good pictures without a viewfinder... Yes, frequently. Not because we removed the viewfinders! One of the things that all decent photographers (which would not be an HB, or David Percy, or..etc) learn, is 'shooting from the hip'. That is not meant to be taken literally - it simply means that often an image opportunity will come along where you do not have time to compose - so you just point the camera in the right direction and fire. (Or sometimes you may be forced to not use it, eg overhead shooting in a crowd.) Again, it doesn't take much knowledge of photography to understand that: - the wider the view of the lens, the easier it is to just aim.. (the standard lens fitted to the lunar Hasselblads was quite wide) - if the camera is kept at 'reasonable' exposure settings for the conditions (eg ~ 1/250, f5.6 for Apollo EVA), it will give a usable exposure. - if the camera is set to a sensible focal distance (look up 'hyperfocal'), it will keep a reasonable depth of field in focus. As a wedding/portrait photographer, you always keep the camera ready as per above so you can shoot without raising the camera to your eye. This can also help to capture candid moments - the subject is less camera conscious if the camera isn't up to your eye. Keeping a camera roughly level and pointing in the right direction is hardly rocket science, and even if it is isn't, the results will often be very usable. You only have to look at the most famous lunar eva pic of them all.. Sure, if you have a longer lens on, then a viewfinder helps. But it is NOT by a long shot essential and with a wide lens it's almost superfluous. A HB who claims otherwise either doesn't know photography or is simply pushing the agenda with the usual deliberate lies or sad ignorance. BTW if anyone not from the dark side wishes to pm me, I'll happily point you to my little 'hobby' gallery site and even point out a few shots taken without using a viewfinder or screen... (I don't do it professionally any more, so no wedding shots thankfully!)
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 4, 2011 8:01:43 GMT -4
Cool! I used similar Hasselblad's (and Bronica SQ's) in the 70's/80's for weddings and portraiture. And yes, they occasionally gave us a few hassles, despite their cost and reputation...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Aug 2, 2011 4:58:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 28, 2011 9:00:44 GMT -4
There seems to be a common link to all his posts, namely his level of respect for NASA... {thinks}maybe he applied to them wanting to be an astronaut, and they knocked him back..{/thinks}
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 28, 2011 7:52:47 GMT -4
Just as an amusing (or is it just sad..) aside... Here at BAUT, you will see someone totally new {cough} taking up fattydash's tranquillity base inanity. He apparently has had a problem creating a new identity here - perhaps LO should make a special exception for him!!! Or not. Isn't it amazing that there are so many people who all sound alike? There's been DoctorTea, MaryB, BFischer, BSpassky, Sicilian, fattydash, briskwalk, MVinson and now HighGain, Oh, wait... Added: Baut is playing up (or down) again at the moment. Good luck getting on. About time Phil paid his bills...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 21, 2011 8:06:32 GMT -4
I think it's a good question.. I may be a cynic (or even a conspiracy theorist!!), but I have a nagging doubt about some of this...
Does anyone know the story with Nasa(v)sPete - was that being played out at some other forum, or just Youtube?
Whilst I applaud what seems to be happening, I shall just sit back and watch to be sure that these folk actually follow through, eg Vincent does something about all those videos that still remain up..
I guess it is after April 1, so maybe I should just warmly welcome the sudden and extreme new-found enthusiasm...
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 20, 2011 6:37:19 GMT -4
While I too congratulate Vincent... I have a small concern or two. As I just posted in a congratulatory note to his YT channel as a comment, I wonder what will he be doing with his many videos that still promote the hoax?
I politely offered to help him address that challenge (maybe he could create a new video, or set of them, to identify the flaws in the case for the denial) and then wished him well.
But that comment seems to have vanished within about a minute of it being posted. Perhaps it is just a cache or YT glitch, or perhaps he doesn't like how I responded to some of his claims, pre-recant...
Oh well. I was genuinely considering a donation to his space suit fund, but now...
hmmmm...
|
|