|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 5, 2011 20:28:39 GMT -4
And ask if emptying a revolver into a cop who rolls up to ask a question is typical behavior for an innocent man. Or attempting to shoot the one who arrested him in the theatre, something only prevented by the cop getting his finger between the hammer and the pin.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Dec 1, 2011 22:33:22 GMT -4
My evidence that time travel into the past is not possible is that I haven't told myself about it yet.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 30, 2011 20:30:22 GMT -4
And is that the LM? It looks like the ullage motors firing on the S-IVB to me. It is, but I douibt that Playdor knew that, he probably thought it was the LM lifting off...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 30, 2011 19:50:38 GMT -4
and yet even with that better technology, they still couldn't stop the dust from billowing.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 29, 2011 15:42:39 GMT -4
laurel 9) how sure are you that the "space race" wasn't a way for the military to finance the research of rocketry and specifically ballistic missiles technology? Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. I'm sure someone pointed it out (reading all of this thread makes my head hurt) but the US demonstratably had a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe as of Janurary 31st, 1958, as proven by the launching of Explorer 1. Since then there had been 11 and a half years in which to perfect that technology. The Saturn V was not required to launch nukes, the Atlas Family of Rockets, which also launched the Mercury Astronauts, showed time and time again from December 1958 through to 1965 that they were fully capable of putting a nuclear weapon into orbit before being retired to the prefered solid fuel booster of the Minuteman (of which the type III is still in place and ready in needed.) The Space Programme didn't help the ICBM Programme, in fact it was exactly the other way around. NASA took technology developed in the ICBM programmes and used that to help build what they needed for the Space Programme. Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo all, with approval, stole stuff from the Military to get the knowledge they needed to fly and complete the missions, the Military was streets ahead of NASA in their missile and rocket technology and so had no need to fund NASA as a clandestine research system. They were also pretty blatent about the programmes they did have in place to do that, and those programmes recieved way more funding than NASA did too.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 17, 2011 3:31:47 GMT -4
Thanks Jay and Bob, you guys rock. You should get a movie together.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 15, 2011 15:22:41 GMT -4
Not in my high school chemistry class. The teacher did it on a bench and made "brown cloud" in the classroom, comparing the amount in the room to the amount in downtown Denver's air every day. Slightly alarming. Nitrogen Dioxide, the other gas that smells like almonds. Still toxic, but doesn't kill you quite as fast. I can remember the days we had it filling the lab so much that there was a haze in the air. It actually reacts with water pretty quickly which is nice, but if you have enough it can be pretty nasty. Very easy way to make the stuff is to drop copper into concentrated nitric acid.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 14, 2011 21:45:54 GMT -4
Most of us are here now to dicuss things we have a passion for with other members of the group who have similar passions. For a while now the odd Hoax believer that turns up and get mentally beaten to a pulp before exploding and departing has just been a bonus. Where's my million dollars?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 14, 2011 1:13:17 GMT -4
Yeah the old server company went out of business and so I had to move it. I hadn't announced the move because I was planning to do some more work on it first.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 20:55:37 GMT -4
You know, this whole star thing is so completely wrongheaded. There have been times when I have had to do things at night, under a clear sky, and I didn't particularly remember or comment on the stars, because I was busy doing something else. The astronauts were not on a pleasure trip for stargazing. They were on a risky scientific mission, where their activities were designed in advance to get as much work done as could be. Why argue that one could, if one tried really hard, see a handful of stars? They were ON THE FREAKING MOON! They had other things to look at! This is what I was commenting about being the sample of one fallacy. I would do this, and since everyone would react like me, they would do it too, and if they didn't do it, then something must be suspicious. When I am out at night I often look at the stars and moon, not always, but a lot. Others don't look up very often at all. Does that make them strange? Not really, they just aren't as interested as me. I'm not interested in the Twilight Saga, that doesn't mean that there is something suspicious about people that do, it's just means they are weird. The fallacy is often also called the "If I run the circus" or "If I ran the zoo" fallacy after the two popular Dr Seus books of the same titles. It's actually far more common that we might like to admit, and even the best thinkers can fall into the trap of thinking that because others don't think or act like they do, then there must be something suspect going on.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 17:38:16 GMT -4
So far no one has given any evidence that Armstrong didn't lie. You are asking for us to prove a negative here. It's not possible to prove that someone didn't do something. It's up to you to show that he should have seen stars and lied about it. No, this is the fundamental core of it. We know that to have seen stars he'd have had to take time to allow for his eyes to adjust. Nowhere in the Apollo record for Apollo 11 do we see this occuring. As such we don't expect him to have seen stars. This has been answered multiple times, under these conditions, and given time for your eyes to adjust, yes you would see them. Armstrong never did this though. Others did later and reported seeing stars under those conditions. It's called the phenomenon of being in bright light and how our eyes work. During a full eclipse with enough time for your eyes to adjust, then I'd say yes, it should be possible.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 17:30:40 GMT -4
What is the difference in looking into space from the shadow of the earth verses the shadow side of a space capsule? There is no such thing as "the shadow side of a space capsule" unless you are outside of the capsule. Regardless, when you are in space, unless you make a conscious effort to get out of the light (either by getting into a deep shadow, or by turning out the lights) and let your eyes adjust for the darkness, you won't be able to see that stars. It is this simple, and a number of people have explained the reasons why that is in some detail for you. The only person to be onboard a blacked out CM during Apollo 11 was Micheal Colins who did so while alone in orbit about the moon and stated in his book Carrying the Fire that with a blacked out CM while in the shadow of the moon that he was able to see stars. Aldrin and Armstong didn't have time on the surface to stand about for 5 mins waiting for their eyes to adjust so they could see something that wasn't overly different to what they'd see on Earth, so they didn't do it. We know they didn't because we have a good idea of what they spent their time doing, it was all planned out and recorded. Later crews did have the time and some of them took it and reported being able to see stars from the lunar surface, as long as you got ionto deep shadow and let your eyes adjust. Now it seems to me that your whole issue is based about the idea that had it been you, you would have wanted to look at the stars and they didn't so something must be wrong. Unfortunately this is a fallacy of a sample of one which based on expecting everyone to do the same things you would. The fact is that different people do things differently, and just because you would do something doesn't mean that they would do the same thing. In this case they didn't have the time or the interest to look for at stars, it is that simple.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 15:49:49 GMT -4
there is video available of Apollo 11 cabin with all the lights turned off....its not an issue. This is actually incorrect. The camera's f-stop was set down so that it could film the very bright earth without it over exposing. This made the cabin appear dark. However when the camera was moved back from the window, it clearly shows that the floodlights were on, because you can see one of them. The bright rectangular to the upper left of the window where the Earth is, is a floodlight. You can see it better later when they open up the camera to more light.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 15:27:37 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 7:06:39 GMT -4
|
|