|
Post by cos on Aug 20, 2008 4:46:27 GMT -4
Has anyone told the oceans that the moon's gravity is 3 times greater than we thought. Because they are doing it wrong.
That is he trouble with HB stuff it just leads them into another hole for which they have no explanation
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 29, 2008 13:51:42 GMT -4
Your supposition on the HBs response is probably all too sadly true but just what would be the point of spending millions on a probe to provide fake topographic data of the moon!!!! Surely there is a limit to how much effort the 'co-conspiritors' are willing to spend on covering up for the Americans 40 years after the event. This is above and beyond the call of duty.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jul 29, 2008 9:47:38 GMT -4
I wonder how the HBs will get their heads around that. What a coincidence that the 'film sets' look exactly like the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jun 7, 2008 20:17:30 GMT -4
That's a new one on me. Most HBs can't get around the fact that it is all obviously filmed in zero G and thus cite LEO as a location. I know you are overburdened with a backlog of unanswered questions but please tell me how the zeroG was faked? I have just watched all the Apollo 11 tv recordings and things are floating all over the place, it is all one continuous take (certainly longer than the 30secs or so of weightlessness you could achieve with a parabolic flight). There are objects that rotate in all axis. Invisible wires? and water droplets? How precisely is this possible on earth?
|
|
|
Post by cos on May 7, 2008 10:31:27 GMT -4
D'oh, of course. Thanks for your reply to my stupid question. Back to rocketry 101 for me...
|
|
|
Post by cos on May 6, 2008 10:16:32 GMT -4
So we know Snoopy could have landed but wasn't carrying enough ascent stage propellant to reach lunar orbit. However, I read in Michael Collins 'Carrying the Fire', that they practiced simulations of taking the CM down to 50000 ft to 'rescue' the LEM and this was something that they were prepared to do in a live mission. Could Snoopy have landed and reached sufficient altitude for Charlie Brown to have rescued it?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 21, 2008 18:06:36 GMT -4
If a HB concedes that Apollo 8 left earth orbit or that the Lunar module went up with Apollo 9 and was successfully flown in the vacuum of space then most of their arguments against Nasa's capability to land on the moon are gone. Hence the ever more ridiculous propositions they must support. Obviously, having realised that they had miscalculated about the Van Allen belts and Grumman delivering a balsa wood model instead of a lunar lander, NASA was suddenly faced with the fact that Apollo 8 wasn't going anywhere. So they decided to fake it. Secretly launching an unmanned probe to bring back pictures of the far side of the moon, they then decided Apollo 8 could only go in LEO. As the hoax would be obvious to every tracking station not under direct American control they called in a few favours to keep quiet about it. The Russians were easy to buy off and a few crates of vodka was enough for them to eschew the greatest cold war propaganda opportunity. Obviously, every amateur astronomer had to be bought off or menaced by NASA death squads (was there a higher incidence of mortality amongst amateur astronomers at the time of Apollo 8? No statistics? How convenient!). The fact that of Apollo 8 remaining in earth orbit for 6 days made it visible to most of the population of the earth was countered by all the bribed/intimidated astronomers who told anyone who asked that it was a comet but were under strict instructions not to record the appearance of this celestial event. Honestly, you PANs have no imagination....
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 30, 2008 17:03:45 GMT -4
If Apollo was a hoax...
Why take 32000 photographs of the highest possible resolution? (17,000 70mm hand held photographs and 15000 5"x5" images from lunar orbit). I think you need around 32MP to come close to a 70mm Hasselblad neg. Pretty high resolution by anyone's measure.
They must have been awfully proud of their film set and papier mache moon. If you were trying to cover something up it is just about the dumbest thing you could do. The only way it makes any sense is if you were trying to archive a historic event in the best way possible. Any HB's care to share their wisdom?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 29, 2008 18:06:21 GMT -4
Because the Nasa death squads will get them!
or
They are ALL part of the conspiracy
or
They are ALL too stupid to see the truth.
Anyway, HBs probably think that Kaysing & Sibrel are the experts and we are just ignoring them.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 26, 2008 10:01:45 GMT -4
In regard to your question about specifics, the lead-pipe cinch disproving Apollo is that the AGC only had 32k of 15-bit words, but computers built up specifically to play space games require something like a gigabyte of RAM!
And bitchin' speakers, too. No speakers on the AGC.
LOL! It's too funny. I am crying. It almost wrecks your brain trying to get into their heads! I hadn't seen this argment before I'll have to keep an eye out for it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 25, 2008 21:47:39 GMT -4
Thanks. I just needed to meet some sane people after coming across 4 people in the last couple of years who are HBs, three of whom were degree educated (but not in a numerate discipline). To be honest I was dumbfounded at the lack of critical reasoning in people I had regarded as intelligent.
It is worrying how such a fictional work of misinformation (the Fox 'documentary') has taken root. When I first saw it I fell off my chair laughing but I had no idea the effect it would have on the scientifically illiterate.
One thing I have noticed is that people susceptible to the Hoax Theory are; a) not scientists or engineers b) generally too young to have been around or too young to remember the Apollo missions.
So far I have convinced 3 of the 4 of their foolishness but one remains a work in progress (unfortunately he has been universally ridiculed on the forum (not my game plan) and he has retreated into a shell).
Hopefully this will all end when something films the landing sites and then we can start a whole new conspiracy theory about how (despite not being able to get to the Moon in 1969), Nasa has managed to plant all the kit on the moon in the subsequent years. Now just where are those secret Saturn 5 size rockets taking off from?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 25, 2008 20:36:51 GMT -4
From the index page under Computer Technology, this point is made; Recall that the Apollo computer was not a general purpose computer. It didn't have to run games or spreadsheets, or do payrolls, or store inventory databases. It only had to navigate the spacecraft to the moon. There were no printers or disk drives required. No tape drives, no card readers or card punches. And so it was a pretty lean computer.And this article I think neatly illustrates the point; news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7094881.stmQuote; "A virtual Colossus written to run on a Pentium 2 laptop takes about the same time to break a cipher as Colossus does," he said.
It was so fast, he said, because it was a single purpose processor rather than one put to many general purposes like modern desktop computers.
So it took 50 years for a general purpose machine to equal a specialised machine. So I'd really like to know specifically what technology wasn't up to the task of landing Men on he Moon in 1969. True to form no HB is keen to get into specifics.....
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 8, 2008 8:59:57 GMT -4
On a related note, the Sky at Night magazine recently put a couple of interviews with a certain pair of gents on the cover DVD. First and last on the moon. The first one, forget his name, says he could not see stars. The latter reckons it was possible but needed a lot of effort.
Cernan was on the Moon a good deal longer than Armstrong and had time for such 'frivolities' as allowing his eyes to adjust to low light in the shadows. If your vision was saturated you couldn't see the stars. I went to a football match in the evening and noticed on the way home that it was quite a starry night. In the brightly lit stadium I didn't see a thing. A Conspiracy? We should be told!
|
|