I am a Moonie

Guest

Well, good luck in the attempt with that space suit on. The temperture is 130C and you are in a vacumn when one tear in the suit is instant death. I will be not cheering you as I will be busy praying as hard as I can.

We have all read about the pulley. They had time to video themselves hopping around like bunnies but none of them unloading that Fiat Bambino from about 20 feet over their head.

Magic I tell ya Magic.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Well, good luck in the attempt with that space suit on. The temperture is 130C and you are in a vacumn when one tear in the suit is instant death. I will be not cheering you as I will be busy praying as hard as I can.

We have all read about the pulley. They had time to video themselves hopping around like bunnies but none of them unloading that Fiat Bambino from about 20 feet over their head.

Magic I tell ya Magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Guest

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:: Well, good luck in the attempt with that space suit on. The temperture is 130C and you are in a vacumn when one tear in the suit is instant death. I will be not cheering you as I will be busy praying as hard as I can.

We have all read about the pulley. They had time to video themselves hopping around like bunnies but none of them unloading that Fiat Bambino from about 20 feet over their head.

Magic I tell ya Magic.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Indeed ibis, and a further argument for the reality of the Moon landings is the lunar laser ranging retroreflector array. If the moon landings were faked, how come we have a little object on the moon upon which we can bounce measuring laserbeams?

Guest

I hate to advise you to stick to economics A-T after how you fared on the iseq thread.

You may be unaware that craft have been landed safely on Mars and Venus but nobody is saying man have landed there,

Guest

youngdan wrote:: I hate to advise you to stick to economics A-T after how you fared on the iseq thread.

You may be unaware that craft have been landed safely on Mars and Venus but nobody is saying man have landed there,

Then show me the evidence that they used an unmanned vehicle to deposit the laser refractor on the Moon.

Guest

Give it a break A-T are you trying to say that it would be more difficult for an unmaned probe to land than a manned craft.

The rashers must have got you too

Guest

A lot of posters are making a very basic error in engaging this conspiracy theory. They are using reason and logic to try to convince those that can not and will not be convinced. Silly.

Guest

toxic avenger wrote:: A lot of posters are making a very basic error in engaging this conspiracy theory. They are using reason and logic to try to convince those that can not and will not be convinced. Silly.

It's very light mental exercise, though - a nice wind-down from doing exactly the same thing over Lisbon, and refreshingly consequence-free.

Guest

A lot or posters are beginning to think

Guest

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:: A lot of posters are making a very basic error in engaging this conspiracy theory. They are using reason and logic to try to convince those that can not and will not be convinced. Silly.

It's very light mental exercise, though - a nice wind-down from doing exactly the same thing over Lisbon, and refreshingly consequence-free.

Whatever wets your whistle. The words wall, brick, and head spring to my mind, but work away...

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Give it a break A-T are you trying to say that it would be more difficult for an unmaned probe to land than a manned craft.

The rashers must have got you too

No youngdan, I am trying to get you to come up with the evidence that the retrorefractors were put up there by unmanned vehicles. They are up there and the only way they got up there was if a manned expedition landed on the moon and set them up, or if a lunar rover robot did it for us. If you can't prove that we sent them up with a lunar rover to set them up, then the only explanation is that a team of astronauts did.

Guest

Your thinking on escape velocity was light mental exercise anyway Ibis but at least now you know what forces are involved

Guest

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:: A lot of posters are making a very basic error in engaging this conspiracy theory. They are using reason and logic to try to convince those that can not and will not be convinced. Silly.

It's very light mental exercise, though - a nice wind-down from doing exactly the same thing over Lisbon, and refreshingly consequence-free.

Whatever wets your whistle. The words wall, brick, and head spring to my mind, but work away...

I'm used to it. Anyway, selective stupidity fascinates me. I'm aware that it cannot be combated with logic - you can only replace a conspiracy theory with another, ideally more flattering to the conspiracy theorist's view of themselves as exceptional.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Your thinking on escape velocity was light mental exercise anyway Ibis but at least now you know what forces are involved

There are mirrors on the moon youngdan, how did they get there ?

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Your thinking on escape velocity was light mental exercise anyway Ibis but at least now you know what forces are involved

No it wasn't and you are willfully ignoring it so as to remain in your as yet baseless position.

Guest

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

ibis wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:: A lot of posters are making a very basic error in engaging this conspiracy theory. They are using reason and logic to try to convince those that can not and will not be convinced. Silly.

It's very light mental exercise, though - a nice wind-down from doing exactly the same thing over Lisbon, and refreshingly consequence-free.

Whatever wets your whistle. The words wall, brick, and head spring to my mind, but work away...

I'm used to it. Anyway, selective stupidity fascinates me. I'm aware that it cannot be combated with logic - you can only replace a conspiracy theory with another, ideally more flattering to the conspiracy theorist's view of themselves as exceptional.

Ah, now the words nail and head spring to mind. It's great to be among a select few who know something the great unwashed don't. You walk around feeling smugly superior to the poor dupes all around you. There must be a psychological study published on it somewhere, I think it's called 'Teenage Communist Syndrome'...

Guest

toxic avenger wrote:: 'Teenage Communist Syndrome'...

Ha. I never caught that. I was immune to that lefty nonsense.

Guest

In the post directly above your own post I have pointed out that probes have not only landed but actually survived intact after landing on Mars and Venus and you come back saying, well who knows what you are saying as you are trying to prove something happened by proving something infinitely easier happened.

I have not said that small and extremely sturdy probes have not landed. That is a different kittle of fish than 23000 kg with 2 humans inside which must not be damaged to prevent a later liftoff.

All you have to do is google and your will see that even the Soviets succeeded in this comparative easy task of a robotic landind. They did not even attempt a manned trip though, and still have not 40 years later.

I have no issues with flags, rocks, shadows, lunar liftoff etc as they are trivial. I have problems with the 3 issues I pointed out.

The Soviets got a craft to the surface after 11 failed attempts in 1966. It's mass was 1580 kg. You can believe 23000kg settled down gently 3 years later if you like with no test.
We will have the answer in April.

Guest

What point are you trying to make about escape velocity A-T because it was Ibis who did not understand that it was centrifugal force that gets the craft out of Earth's orbit.

Guest

youngdan,

centrifugal force has nothing to do with a craft getting off the planet. It has a good lot to do with orbiting the planet.

You might tell me why or how you think centrifugal froce gets the craft out of earth's orbit. It can be used to slingshot a craft or satellite out of orbit but it isn't responsible for keeping a rocket or anything else on the surface.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: What point are you trying to make about escape velocity A-T because it was Ibis who did not understand that it was centrifugal force that gets the craft out of Earth's orbit.

Mm. You appreciate there isn't actually any such thing as centrifugal force?

Guest

What. Centripetal then.

O jesus h chr* youngdan has me thinking like him now

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:: What. Centripetal then.

O jesus h chr* youngdan has me thinking like him now

Some mental diseases are contagious.

Guest

youngdan wrote:: The Soviets got a craft to the surface after 11 failed attempts in 1966. It's mass was 1580 kg. You can believe 23000kg settled down gently 3 years later if you like with no test.
We will have the answer in April.

First of all, there are technology differences between Russia and the US. The Russians could not manage to build a successful fault-free space station in Mir like the Americans could. The Americans were also behind the Russians in sending a satellite and an animal into space. This could easily be a case where the Americans had superior lunar module technology to the Russians.

Secondly the modules were tested in the US. Apollo's 1 to 10, before the first manned mission to the Moon, tested out the developing NASA LM technology. By the time Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong touched down on the moon, these vehicles had been well road-tested and the NASA scientists had had plenty of time to refine their models and technology to ensure it all went without any hitches.

Guest

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:: What point are you trying to make about escape velocity A-T because it was Ibis who did not understand that it was centrifugal force that gets the craft out of Earth's orbit.

Mm. You appreciate there isn't actually any such thing as centrifugal force?

So your point still stands?