|
Post by PeterB on Nov 2, 2011 10:52:14 GMT -4
Mcclellan If the rocket is travelling at around 108m/s at the time you're talking about, that means it takes about 1 second to travel its own length. Sure doesn't look that slow to me when I watch the footage from www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OIThen watch your own video first before you state anything crazy. Between 6:10 and 7:08 (when the rocket enters the cloud) the image is being changed 12 times! The video lacks the continuity that we have in Phil Pollacia's video. Yes, Pollacia's video is continuous from launch until the rocket blows its way through the cloud. But there's something odd about it. The first stage burned out 2m 45s after launch, which would be about 6m 30s in the Pollacia video. The second stage engines burned invisibly. Yet in Pollacia's footage the engine glow remains strong after 6m 30s. This leads me to believe the footage may be slowed down. Well, the same sequence occurs in the Pollacia video and the one I linked. We can clearly see the engine plume is narrow, so it must be reasonably low in the atmosphere. According to the Apollo 11 Flight Journal Transcript (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/01launch.htm), shortly after 1m 6s into the flight, velocity was 2195 feet/sec, which is about 670 m/s. Where did you get the 920m/s figure from? Come on, you don't need sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Nov 1, 2011 8:04:54 GMT -4
Mcclellan If the rocket is travelling at around 108m/s at the time you're talking about, that means it takes about 1 second to travel its own length. Sure doesn't look that slow to me when I watch the footage from www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGNryrsT7OI
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 20, 2011 11:00:03 GMT -4
Have you checked Google News for archived news reports about Kennedy's speech? bit.ly/q7zACFThanks for that. It hadn't occurred to me. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 19, 2011 22:16:14 GMT -4
Yes, congratulations to England on their success. They deserve it.
Surprisingly, it wasn't hard for me as an Aussie supporter to say that. The quality of the Australian team at the moment hasn't been this low since the mid-1980s. It'll be interesting to see how we do on the current tour of Sri Lanka.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 19, 2011 22:10:59 GMT -4
In Kennedy's speech to Congress in May 1961, when he makes the original commitment to the Moon, who's the man sitting beside Johnson in the seats behind Kennedy? And what was the VP's official duty in this case? President of the Senate, isn't it? The person next to Johnson should be the Speaker of the House. The VP and Speaker sit behind the President when he addresses a joint session of Congress. The VP and Speaker are the presiding officers over the Senate and House of Representatives. The Speaker in 1961 was Sam Rayburn. The main duty of the VP in the Senate is to cast a vote when necessary to break a tie. Thanks Bob. So this arrangement is the standard one when the President addresses a joint sitting of Congress? The reason I ask is that I'm writing a short article on Kennedy's speech, and I want to try to recreate some of the atmosphere of the event in the article. That's why I'm curious to know if anyone knows how the speech was received by the media the next day.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 19, 2011 22:05:36 GMT -4
That video clip is funny every time I watch it.
By the way, what's the name given to the woman? It sounds like 'Doug'.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 17, 2011 22:51:47 GMT -4
In Kennedy's speech to Congress in May 1961, when he makes the original commitment to the Moon, who's the man sitting beside Johnson in the seats behind Kennedy? And what was the VP's official duty in this case? President of the Senate, isn't it?
It was interesting to read the whole speech - the section dealing with space was only one part of a nine or 10 part speech. What sort of reaction was there to the speech? Did the media note the Moon commitment to the exception of everything else in the speech, or did it take time before people realised what Kennedy had committed NASA to?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 16, 2011 12:21:53 GMT -4
As you read along, it will become more and more apparent why an individual who has not slept in over 24 hours would pen what amounts to an essay, to people whom he does not know in regard to an issue he can never hope to understand. Never hope to understand? You got that right. No matter how many times people explain things to you, you never understand. Perhaps if you went to bed and had a good night's sleep, things might improve. You do realise there are people commenting on this thread other than Jay? Where did Jay say that? What were his exact words? Did he say he thought a doctor would know little about these matters? What about engineering? Perhaps. But at the moment you're getting a reputation as someone who can write a lot of words for little content, and as someone who dodges questions. It's always Jay. What are the rest of us? Chopped liver? I'm sure you've heard of the expression "correlation doesn't mean causation". If you've got evidence that posters on this forum have inside knowledge that Apollo was faked, I'd love to see it. Right. We can't ban you, because you're getting close. I'm willing to bet that if you get yourself banned, you'll conclude it was because you were getting too close. Why? Do machine parts never fail? Huh? If you've read the account properly, you'd know "3s" couldn't become "9s". The top left vertical stroke on one digit of the display failed, so while a "9" could be misread as a "3", the reverse wasn't possible. Please note what you've quoted Aldrin as saying. I do. It's on page 52 of Volume 2 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report, and Aldrin repeats it on pages 131-2. Edit to add: The anomaly report on this problem is on page 191 of Volume 3 of the Apollo 11 Mission Report. I found it. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11tcdb.html Click on sections 8.2 and 19.1. No. See above. Your Google Fu must be weak. Begging the question. Why would it be a problem? The surface of the Moon is as featureless as a field of wheat? So NASA feared a Soviet exposure? How then did NASA fake the transmissions in such a way that it appeared Houston was talking to astronauts stationary on the Moon's surface and orbiting the Moon? How convenient? No one but Capcoms spoke to astronauts in any manned mission prior to Apollo 11. Obviously NASA had been setting that up since 1961. You could start by answering some of the questions people have been asking you. Jay isn't the only other person posting on this thread. What is it with Jay?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 12, 2011 10:55:57 GMT -4
Stutefish Patients who "look like Borman" with diarrhea, vomiting, chills get interrogated big time regardless of "familiarity". Some cases of infectious diarrhea must be reported to the local board of public health for obvious reasons. This is fairly significant stuff. What sort of assessment and recommendations would you give to a person who told you they’d had D&V yesterday, but they’re feeling better now? Any thoughts, fattydash?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 12, 2011 10:54:08 GMT -4
Heh. I'd like to know how the rock business was organised. But as that's probably in the "I don't know how it was done but it must have been faked" category, I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 8, 2011 12:33:36 GMT -4
Stutefish Patients who "look like Borman" with diarrhea, vomiting, chills get interrogated big time regardless of "familiarity". Some cases of infectious diarrhea must be reported to the local board of public health for obvious reasons. This is fairly significant stuff. What sort of assessment and recommendations would you give to a person who told you they’d had D&V yesterday, but they’re feeling better now? Edit to add: I see Twik has asked pretty much the same question as me.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 17, 2011 8:10:55 GMT -4
Okay, let me refute it. 1. NASA has rocks... {big snip} Please show me where my logic is faulty. You really didn't prove anything at all. Boy it's a shame you were banned. I would've loved to have chased you to explain where my logic was faulty...
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 11, 2011 9:26:42 GMT -4
I am saying that it is possible men landed on the moon, but it's also possible that they could have brought samples with robots. I take it for granted that something is possible unless you refute it. Refute it then. Okay, let me refute it. 1. NASA has rocks. Scientific examination of these rocks demonstrates they're from the Moon. 2. There are photographs of these rocks in the labs here on Earth. 3. There are photographs of these same rocks on the ground, prior to their collection. 4. The photos of the rocks on the ground often contain images of astronauts. 5. There are two possibilities. Either the rocks were photographed on and collected from the Moon by humans. Or they were collected by robots from the Moon and photographed on the Earth. 6. If they were collected by robots, how were the photographs created on the Earth? Were they photographed on a set made of Earthly material or a set made of lunar material? If the former, how were the rocks not contaminated by the Earthly material of the set? If the latter, how was the material for the set collected? 7. Additionally, the photographs of the rocks are interspersed with photos of the astronauts which can often be connected to video footage (for example, John Young's Jump Salute). If the rock photos were taken on Earth, then presumably the other photos were taken on the Earth too, which means the video footage must also have been recorded on the Earth. Yet the video footage shows actions which are unique to the Moon - objects behaving as though in a low gravity vacuum. How was this done? Therefore in postulating robots being used for the collection of rock samples, it logically follows that you need to be able to explain how the video footage was recorded. Please show me where my logic is faulty.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 3, 2011 8:47:05 GMT -4
In post #76, randombloke said:
In post #150, kimchijjigae said:
He shoots. He scores.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Mar 3, 2011 8:33:09 GMT -4
|
|