 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / November 2007Apollo 13 - A Publicity Stunt
By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly due to most of the previous Apollo 12 Mission having to rely mainly on an audio transmission, due to the camera malfunctions encountered. Was this a factor in the alleged near disaster on the Apollo 13 mission? Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government? On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded. The film here sees the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM, the craft is allegeded to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out of the window we see blue sky? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course? Take a look at the two pictures below. http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Apol13.gif http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/Commandm.gif As pointed out by Percy and Bennett in 'What happened on the Moon?', the picture on the left shows the Odyssey after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its cover removed from the scientific instrument bay. Do they look similar to you? How could Astronaut Fred Haise state the crew aboard Apollo 13 could see Frau Mauro? At the time of the accident, Frau Mauro, which was to be the original landing site of the Apollo 13, was in darkness and would remain so for the entire time that the Apollo 13 was near the Moon. In fact it did not reappear until 88 hours after the Apollo 13 had left. By this time the Apollo would have been 19,000 miles away on its way back to Earth, making it impossible for any of the crew to see Frau Mauro during the mission . http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html <snip> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H AHA HA What a load of crap you spew LOL If you even had a sense of what you are saying and how stupid it sonunds I read you whole site what a joke Photo evidence LOL from someone who does not even know how light and cameras work' LOL Nothing of value. I wonder if Hobo is related to guth, he doesn't understand basic science either. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Sooo you're saying the photos were faked by popping off the cover on Apollo 13's SIM bay, right? (I want to get an answer on record before someone tells him that the first SIM bay flew on Apollo 15 ;-) ) -JTD > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore > guarantee the continued funding of the US Government? No. Stupid, stupid troll. >>By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in >>space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Stupid, stupid troll. At the risk of feeding said troll, I'm sure that NASA would have preferred a fully successful Apollo 13 mission. As it is, Pres. Nixon IIRC, caused NASA to cancel all missions after Apollo 17, as he feared that subsequent missions increased the odds of another serious problem mission or fatalities. Maybe do a few farside landings (after some form of comm sat repeater was built and flown). Anyway... ======================================================================= "What did Santa Claus say at the house of ill repute?" "Ho ho ho!" ;-) On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:52:05 -0500, in a place far, far away, robert casey <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in >>>space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that subsequent missions increased the odds of another serious problem >mission or fatalities. You don't recall correctly. Very few do. > On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:52:05 -0500, in a place far, far away, robert > casey <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in > such a way as to indicate that: > >At the risk of feeding said troll, I'm sure that NASA would have > >preferred a fully successful Apollo 13 mission. As it is, Pres. Nixon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You don't recall correctly. Very few do. To expand a bit: - The peak year for NASA budgets during the Apollo era was (I believe, doing this from memory) 1967. Every subsequent year was downhill, including the FY1968 and 1969 budgets prepared by the Johnson Administration. Notably, these budgets cancelled orders for long-lead items on Saturn V boosters after (again, IIRC) AS-515- which meant that in the absence of corrective action by a later administration, the number of Saturn boosters (and hence the number of Apollo flights) was already limited- if all the Saturn Vs ordered at that point had been used for lunar missions it would have taken the program to Apollo 20. - Nixon's administration failed to reverse the Johnson cuts in FY1970 (not surprisingly, IMO, given the other constraints the government was under at the time). Since NASA now knew that the Saturn Vs were a limited resource, they cancelled the Apollo 20 mission in January of 1970 (before Apollo 13, which flew in April) so that there would be a Saturn available for Skylab. - NASA's budget was cut again in FY1971, causing the cancellation of Apollo 15 and 19 in September of 1970. (Apollo 15 was originally supposed to be an H mission, with Apollo 16 as the first J, but it was dropped from the program and the remaining missions renumbered.) I believe that Deke Slayton stated in his autobiography that *in his opinion* NASA management did not fight these cuts as hard as they could have because they were afraid of losing the entire manned program if an Apollo crew died on a mission to the Moon, and that may well have been one of the motivations, but it certainly wasn't the only one. Budgets were tight, NASA wanted to have enough money to move on to other things, and they wanted to save another Saturn V so that they could launch a second Skylab. (Didn't end up happening, but it was a pretty serious plan- serious enough that they finished the station. It's in the Air and Space in Washington.) Nixon certainly had his role to play in the ending of Apollo, but he's far from the lone villain that he's popularly portrayed as. His budgets didn't do anything to help the program, but it had already started to decline before he came into office. He does, IMO, have to take a large part of the blame for the economically idiotic decision to let two missions' worth of completed lunar hardware go into museums rather than undertake the relatively minor expense of flying them. (Sunk costs, anyone?) And although Slayton seems to have thought that fear of another Apollo 13 on NASA management led them to be more accepting of the 1971 cuts than they otherwise would have been, I'm not sure how widely held of a view that was or is. Slayton was definitely a program insider and should be taken very seriously, but he's not infalliable. Sorry for the long post, hope it helps rather than obfuscates. -JTD > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html Been an idiot for long? Good Lord, I hope you don't live in the United States. Every damn time I think I'm going to the polls to make a difference in the next election, one of you nut cases comes out of the woodwork and reminds me that your vote cancels mine out :-))) Oh well...........what the hell!! :-) Dudley Henriques > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html  SignatureDudley Henriques > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html I agree, just as those Zion Yids put one of their own kind(Jesus Christ) on a stick for another one of their Yiddish faith-based PR stunts, whereas A13 may have been the only manned mission having once partly and only briefly orbited our physically dark and naked anticathode moon, though also from a much safer distance than any sustained circular orbit. - Brad Guth - <snip> > I agree, just as those Zion Yids put one of their own kind(Jesus > Christ) on a stick for another one of their Yiddish faith-based PR [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sustained circular orbit. > - Brad Guth - I may regret asking this, guth, but would you please attempt translating that into a known language? If I understand your spew you are admitting the U.S. flew a manned mission around the moon. In other threads you have told us that was impossible to do. Among other things you told us Saturn V was too weak to heave Apollo capsule, LM and support module. Then again you also told us the men aboard would wouldn't survive the radiation of the Van Allen belts. Other than your self loathing or fear of Jews is there a point to your rants? Do you post only to spew your filth or do you also wish to prove how uneducated you are? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I may regret asking this, guth, but would you please attempt > translating that into a known language? Some of us came into this world with a certain Zion faith-based kind of cultivated chip or insurmountable mindset to deal with, and for their somewhat limited cult size being less than a majority is what meant that becoming the world's faith-based bully was perhaps their one and only option of sticking to their guns(sort of speak). Keeping the rest of us as snookered as possible, such as continually in your realm of naysay and/or hocus-pocus status quo, as well as in denial of being in denial about all of those crop circles of rather extremely complex crop (CAD/CAM) patterns, as though everything we see is entirely of flat-Earth terrestrial logic along with that passive sun in orbit of your one and only livable planet in the universe, along with that other naked and supposedly passive orb we call our moon that's supposedly entirely safe to soft land and walk upon, as such is asking of a whole lot more faith in your kind of humanity than many others and myself have to share, or would otherwise accept as the one and only truth. > If I understand your spew you are admitting the U.S. flew a manned > mission around the moon. That's not the same fly-by-rocket thing of physics, as their having to place nearly 50 tonnes safely into a 100 km circular orbit, or much less safely landing upon that physically dark, dusty, highly electrostatic charged and unavoidably anticathode surface that's saturated in a gamma and X-rays, as well as being somewhat salty to boot, now is it. > In other threads you have told us that was > impossible to do. Among other things you told us Saturn V was too weak > to heave Apollo capsule, LM and support module. Then again you also told > us the men aboard would wouldn't survive the radiation of the Van Allen > belts. You can play all those silly out of context word and number games of your conditional laws of physics all that you want, yet you sneaky folks still can't or wouldn't so much as dare honestly share and share alike, such as for sharing those viewable locations of Venus as of missions A11, A14 and A16. > Other than your self loathing or fear of Jews is there a point to > your rants? Do you post only to spew your filth or do you also wish to > prove how uneducated you are? Thank God, I have no such loathing fears of all them good Jews, just the sorts of truly nasty/bad Zion Jews that seem to be of a borg like collective that's situated right here within this faith-based infomercial spewing usenetland of their evidence excluding, denials and naysayism as based upon their pretend cloak of atheism that hasn't a speck of remorse or tolerance for the revisions of anything outside of their Old Testament holy grail. BTW, everything about our moon and of those supposed NASA/Apollo missions is easily supercomputer doable as a virtual 3D interactive live or real time simulation, including our clear and unobstructed view of that relatively nearby Venus. Perhaps you folks should change your pretend atheist religion to something else where we'd expect to be hearing those incest butt loads of lies upon lies. (how about for a LLPOF change, you try being Catholic instead of Jewish) - Brad Guth - >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> I may regret asking this, guth, but would you please attempt >> translating that into a known language? <snip> proof guth is incapable of communicating coherently. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Why are you such an unhappy camper? Why can't you folks share and share alike, as to where and/or how the heck your fellow rusemasters of NASA/Apollo were hiding Venus. Is it the same LLPOF method used for hiding all of those Muslim WMD? - Brad Guth - > > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > How do you hide a Planet???? :-[ > How do you hide a Planet???? :-[- Hide quoted text - I'll bet David Copperfield knows how. LOL DSC > > How do you hide a Planet???? :-[- Hide quoted text - > > I'll bet David Copperfield knows how. LOL > > DSC Copperfield is what our residenr LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) needs right about now. As for hiding such a nearby and vibrant planet like Venus from those unfiltered Kodak moments, at least technically you can't, nor why would any village idiot go out of their way in order to having avoided such a pesky bright item in that otherwise crystal clear and thus black sky that's always above our PHYSICALLY DARK moon. Most any interactive 3D orbital simulator proves exactly where Venus should have been, as could have been easily parked within a good many FOVs, as well as for being well above the DR(dynamic range) minimums of such nifty rad-hard Kodak film. -- Brad Guth > >>>><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > How do you hide a Planet???? You don't. But Brad has a major brain case on the planet Venus. His whole involvement in the "moon hoax conspiracy" came from his believing that artifical structures were found on a fly-by of Venus and NASA refuses to take it seriously. Therefore any reference to Apollo brings up the Venus reference. The fact that Venus would be between the Earth/Moon and the Sun and thus any attempt to view or photograph it would mean facing the Sun and risking damaging the camera is immaterial to him. (In fact, I believe one of the Apollo missions the astronaut actually did accidently point the video camera at the Sun for a moment and burned out it's components!) As far as the "Zion Yids" putting one of their own on a stick, the Jews practiced stoning for major crimes, not crucifixtion. That was a Roman punishment. The Jews went to the Romans and said; "This man is dangerous, take care of him for us." The final responsibility, no matter what Pilate may have said, has to be shared between the Jewish priests and the Roman law givers. > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Dan, As you've already learned Brad is a f.ck knuckle. Ignore the douchebag.... SignaturePCs, like air-conditioners, are useless when you open Windows. Dear Mr. (or is it Dr. ) Hobo - Wow - thanks for bringing this to my attention - I really was sucked in by the huge government conspiracy to make us poor uneducated slobs believe that they really were doing all that space stuff. But, fortunately for all of us, you have shown clearly and with irrefutable evidence that it was all a hoax to get us to vote for more taxes. Just think how long this could have gone on had not you and other brilliant scientific minds like yours found a way to expose the fraud behind everything NASA ever did. I'm putting you in for a Pulitzer prize, a Nobel Prize, and a Blue Ribbon at the county fair just to show my appreciation. Jack G. > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in Snip _____ Can someone explain the psychology of this type of person? I mean look, it has a web site with videos. ALLOT of work went into this project. What drives a person to ignore all reason and logic like this? Any links to this type of behavior study would be greatly appreciated. HDS > Can someone explain the psychology of this type of person? I mean look, it > has a web site with videos. ALLOT of work went into this project. What > drives a person to ignore all reason and logic like this? Any links to this > type of behavior study would be greatly appreciated. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory You want to see a website that took a lot of work, dig into this looniness - http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/index.html A subsidiary part of this - http://www.greyfalcon.us/ Pat Simple their idiots >> Can someone explain the psychology of this type of person? I mean look, >> it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Pat > Simple > > their idiots Their idiots what? >> Simple >> >> their idiots > > Their idiots what? I guess he meant "they're idiots." Obviously, UMRS hasn't gotten out of the 6th grade yet. He's working on it... >>> Simple >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess he meant "they're idiots." Obviously, UMRS hasn't gotten out of > the 6th grade yet. He's working on it... Yeah, I assumed that too. Just the irony of calling someone else an idiot and then making a mistake like that. :-) SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html >>>> Simple >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yeah, I assumed that too. Just the irony of calling someone else an idiot > and then making a mistake like that. :-) Yeah, a typo or two is nothing, thinking one thing and typing another, etc. It all happens... no big deal. But this shows he hasn't the slightest idea of the difference between the two idioms. The History Channel's utter nuking of 9/11 conspiracy myths re-aired last night, and I wondered aloud what kind of resultant conspiracy nonsense would come around on the internet today. -c > The History Channel's utter nuking of 9/11 conspiracy myths re-aired last > night, and I wondered aloud what kind of resultant conspiracy nonsense would > come around on the internet today. > It's a excellent show, and shows just how outrageous the 'collapsed building' claims are when faced with any logical inquiry. That being said, I am still somewhat up in the air about if the Bush administration had a suspicion that a attack was in the works and didn't really do very much to stop it, as it would be the perfect event to clear their action plan for Iraq, and their ripping the guts out of the Bill Of Rights under the excuse of a national emergency - so that the executive branch could vastly increase its power, like David Addington was in favor of. Or it could have simply been gross incompetence on the part of the administration, like pretty much everything else since has been. God knows what is going to happen over in Pakistan in the next few days, but the thought of Al Qaeda with nuclear weapons isn't a good one...you know what that would mean...we'd have to invade Iran...or possibly Venezuela. ;-) Pat > > The History Channel's utter nuking of 9/11 conspiracy myths re-aired last > > night, and I wondered aloud what kind of resultant conspiracy nonsense [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > executive branch could vastly increase its power, like David Addington > was in favor of. Pat, consider this: The record of massive incompetence that the Shrub Administration has so far amassed, would make it grossly unlikely that this notion could be the one thing that they were actually able to mastermind. Conspiracy " theories " have the burden of proof at the best of times, and with the record of the last 7 years, this is not the best of times to try such a notion, absent some proof. Now, I would agree with the notion that, once they had 9/11 dropped on them, they were not too slow at working out how to fit the new events into their agenda; Thats what politicians do. > Or it could have simply been gross incompetence on the part of the > administration, like pretty much everything else since has been. Occam is big on that view... <g> > God knows what is going to happen over in Pakistan in the next few days, > but the thought of Al Qaeda with nuclear weapons isn't a good one...you > know what that would mean...we'd have to invade Iran...or possibly > Venezuela. ;-) Um... with what ? The Salvation Army ? I hear they're an international outfit, so the Limbaugh slobberers will view them as being a part of the Black Helicopter crowd. Whats the proof that the US is a Great Nation ? That it might still *survive* eight years of George W. Bush. Oh, the Cdn. $ closed today at $1.07.2 US. On January 18, 2002, the Cdn. $ was valued at $0.62.48 US. Thats not too far from a *doubling* of the value of the Cdn $ vis a vis the US Peso in less than 6 years... Andre > > > The History Channel's utter nuking of 9/11 conspiracy myths re-aired last > > > night, and I wondered aloud what kind of resultant conspiracy nonsense [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > this notion could be the one thing that they were actually able to > mastermind. I wouldn't claim Bush and Co. "masterminded" 9/11, I don't think Bush could mastermind a plot to open a bag of pretzles. But I just might buy that someone, somewhere caught wind of this plot happening and arranged for certain elements not to pursue the investigation. Even this, I would place around Cheney and crew, I don't think Bush could even pull that much off. Having said that, I wouldn't believe they'd thought far enough ahead to presume the buildings would collapse! I think they may have thought; "A couple of planes hit buildings, several hundred dead, and we have a bloody shirt to wave at the American people." > > > > The History Channel's utter nuking of 9/11 conspiracy myths re-aired last > > > > night, and I wondered aloud what kind of resultant conspiracy nonsense [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > buy that someone, somewhere caught wind of this plot happening and > arranged for certain elements not to pursue the investigation. It still works out to the same thing. That this Keystone cops bunch could even keep such a secret is beyond the plausable. That they would consider such a plan, knowing what the blowback would be if and when it comes out, is insane. As are most conspriracy " theories ". > Even > this, I would place around Cheney and crew, I don't think Bush could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > several hundred dead, and we have a bloody shirt to wave at the > American people." And, they knew that there wouldn't be nukes, dirty bombs, etc., how ? The ONLY kind of plan one can count on is one you fulfill yourself. For any 1st World administration to allow their initiatives and choices to be made by non state terror groups, is, well, nuts. The very control freakiness of modern politics makes that concept insane and utterly self destructive in a very short order. Thats why Real Life is far more boring than a Bourne film. Andre > Or it could have simply been gross incompetence on the part of the > administration, like pretty much everything else since has been. That's my vote. Not just his administration; a whole bunch of bureaucrats sleeping on the job. 'Cause first you'd have to believe that the CIA/FBI/Illuminati/White House/Congress/Pentagon/whatever had the wherewithall to pull off such -multiple- stunts; in spite of all that, they still weren't able to fly some mustard gas from the Umatilla chemical weapons depot to Iraq and "find" WMD, thereby justifying the war. They couldn't figure out how to fake a WMD discovery. There's simply no way they pulled off 9/11 and snowed the FAA, the NYPD and NYFD, witnesses, survivors and intense media investigation. (Of course, everybody in non-whackjob fantasy land knows this anyway...) -c >> Or it could have simply been gross incompetence on the part of the >> administration, like pretty much everything else since has been. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -c Governmental competence is an oxymoron. :-) SignatureHeaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by Italians. http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ > >> Or it could have simply been gross incompetence on the part of the > >> administration, like pretty much everything else since has been. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Governmental competence is an oxymoron. > :-) Yeah, its just not possible that a gov't operation like NASA could achieve the goal of landing on the Moon, on time and on budget. Better give that kind of job to the efficient private firms like... Enron, or Worldcom... > Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics > German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://new.photos.yahoo.com/paul1cart/albums/ Andre "Pat Flannery" > gross incompetence on the part of the administration, Well, really, if people want to blow up a federal bldg or rob a bank or do anything else, no amt of gov't surveillance is going to stop them. Hardly comes close to "gross incompetence". SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On 5 Nov, 13:53, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote: > > Simple > > > their idiots > > Their idiots what? Their idiot brains made them idiots, idiot. > - Visa citerad text - > Can someone explain the psychology of this type of person? I mean look, it > has a web site with videos. ALLOT of work went into this project. What > drives a person to ignore all reason and logic like this? Any links to this > type of behavior study would be greatly appreciated. It's hatred that drives these nut jobs. Just like the 9/11 conspiracy nuts who hate George Bush so much they have to make crap up to blame it on Bush. Also I would tend to think that this type of person is: Dumb as a post Dumb as a stump Dumber than a bag of hammers Dumber than a box of rocks A Few bricks shy A Few fries short of a happy meal A Few sandwiches short of a picnic A Half a bubble off Not playing with a full deck Not the brightest bulb (in the box / on the tree / in the chandelier) Not the brightest crayon in the box Not the sharpest crayon in the box Not the sharpest knife in the cabinet Not the sharpest pencil in the box One taco short of a combination plate Sharp as a marble Thick as a brick and His/Her elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor Just fell off the turnip truck Couldn't find his way out of a paper bag Doesn't have both oars in the water The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead The Lights are on but there's nobody home DSC > On the 13th > hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when > an oxygen tank exploded. So the 13th day of the Apollo 13 mission would have been the second day after launch eh? I'll give you the 13th hour claim since somewhere on Earth it was no doubt 13:00. SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London On Nov 4, 11:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NoClue <dumb.bru...@moron.cow> shat: > > On the 13th > > hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when > > an oxygen tank exploded. > > So the 13th day of the Apollo 13 mission would have been the second day > after launch eh? Indeed. When such lunatics cannot even get such a basic fact right, it makes clear that they are utterly untrustworthy for any facts that are any more complex. The actual launch date was April 11, 19:13:00 UTC. > I'll give you the 13th hour claim since somewhere on Earth it was no > doubt 13:00. The explosion in the SM tank occurred at about 55 hours and 53 minutes into the flight. But, that doesn't make for any cool looking numbers. So the kooks ignore them. Best to ignore the kooks. They don't need attention, they need a lot of professional mental health care. Andre > On Nov 4, 11:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NoClue <dumb.bru...@moron.cow> > shat: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > So > the kooks ignore them. Lucky it wasn't 66 hrs, 66 minutes and 66 seconds into the flight. That would have been SPOOKY! SignatureDirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK Remote Viewing classes in London > On Nov 4, 11:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NoClue <dumb.bru...@moron.cow> > shat: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Andre The picture in question was taken only after the command module separated from the LEM (which was used as a lifeboat). This was when they were back from the moon and -- principally -- inserted back into a close earth orbit. Yet, Hobo (idiot) asks why the earth was so large in the background. Well... duh...! This sounds like something a moron would say. > > On Nov 4, 11:42 am, Dirk Bruere at NoClue <dumb.bru...@moron.cow> > > shat: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The picture in question was taken only after the command module > separated from the LEM (which was used as a lifeboat). I will confess that I have not seen this discussion on the picture. In any case, as the flight was still well under 13 days elapsed time then, it changes my point not at all. > This was when they were back from the moon and -- principally -- > inserted back into a close earth orbit. Yet, Hobo (idiot) asks why the > earth was so large in the background. Well... duh...! None of the SM pictures that I can find show anything but the SM. > This sounds like something a moron would say. Well, yes, if someone wondered why the Earth was so close in any picture of the Apollo 13 just jettisoned SM, that would be ignorant and/or flat out dumb. Andre >By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in >space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore >guarantee the continued funding of the US Government? Instead of "Apollo13", I think you've been watching that great OJ Simpson flick "Capricorn One." The whole idea of the movie is a fake Mars landing. Then the Astronauts back out the deal & "the MAN" has to kill them to keep things quiet. Still I ethier case, I think this is Consprisy fantasy stuff. You need to lose this X-files obsession and move on...... :-[ > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html Hmmmm, usenet is right back down to its CPU knees once again. I wonder why? Will China Beat the United States Back to the Moon? Why don't be silly, of course they will, except more like being of the very first time, and with using those robust robotic androids that are rad-hard enough. China isn't exactly stupid or much less snookered and/or dumbfounded past the point of no return, you know, and to think that they don't even have any team of smart Third Reich Yids for getting those robotics safely onto the moon. - Brad Guth - > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ...and if those robotic androids (another oxymoron) happen to shoot pictures of one of the landing sites and show the equipment left there, then what? > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > pictures of one of the landing sites and show the equipment left > there, then what? Then I'd apologise and change the tune of my rant, though why not if it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth that's independently replicated outside of your NASA/Apollo O-Ring quran, that which supposedly has never told any of us a lie. Are you suggesting that our warm and fuzzy government (including NASA) doesn't tell lies, or cover thy butt at most every possible opportunity? -- Brad Guth > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Would never try to tell you that. However, the fact that the government has been less that forward with us simply doesn't support YOUR concept (I won't even call it a theory) that the moon landings were faked! > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > YOUR concept (I won't even call it a theory) that the moon landings > were faked! That's only because it's not a concept or a theory, but rather matter of physics and replicated science fact. Sorry about that. -- Brad Guth > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Since you've never once explained exactly <where> you get your numbers or opinions from, I have to take with the proverbial "grain of salt" any claim that your information is based on physics or replicated science fact. > > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > any claim that your information is based on physics or replicated > science fact. If you can manage to hide a nearby planet as albedo vibrant as Venus, then you're a whole lot better off at hocus-pocus than anyone I know of. If you can get nearly 50 tonnes into a close orbit of our moon within 3 days using just a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket per payload, as having a nearly 30% inert GLOW, then you're doing so much better than Einstein or anyone else. If you've got one of those R&D prototype fly-by-rocket landers, let us see it doing it's R&D fly-by-rocket thing. -- Brad Guth > > > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > then you're a whole lot better off at hocus-pocus than anyone I know > of. How did David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear? He didn't, he just changed the camera angle so we weren't looking at it! So it is with Venus. It was there, but they didn't take any pictures of it because they weren't there to take pictures of the sky! Furthermore, Venus, being between the Earth and the Sun, would be close to the Sun's FOV and they weren't going to risk the cameras taking pictures too close to the Sun's FOV! One last point, the closer Venus would be to Earth, the more of its "shadow side" would be facing us and less of its reflective side. If it were as close as possible, it would be a "new" Venus and would be very difficult to see same as the "new" Moon in the Earth sky. In order for Venus to be at its most brilliant, it would have to be on the other side of its orbit and _much_ further away. > If you can get nearly 50 tonnes into a close orbit of our moon within > 3 days using just a 60:1 ratio worth of rocket per payload, as having > a nearly 30% inert GLOW, then you're doing so much better than > Einstein or anyone else. I comment that you never give your references and you give us another batch of numbers without reference. What is your lofty position in life that gives you such knowledge as to weight/thrust ratios? > If you've got one of those R&D prototype fly-by-rocket landers, let us > see it doing it's R&D fly-by-rocket thing. You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! > You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! Aaaargh! The dreaded Brad Guth Credentials discussion again!!!! Run away! >> You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! > > Aaaargh! The dreaded Brad Guth Credentials discussion again!!!! > > Run away! Guth's credentials are as follows: he has none. As for credibility: he has none of that either. As for his ability to debate logically: he never has. His comprehension of basic science: none. I picture him as s smelly geek who can't get a date, blow up dolls don't count, and never leaves his basement. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > >> You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > smelly geek who can't get a date, blow up dolls don't count, and never > leaves his basement. But then our warm and fussly "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" just loves the notion of killing innocent Muslims (especially oily Muslims). Go figure. -- Brad Guth > >> You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Dan, you old U.S. Air Force, retired fart, where did you go? -- Brad Guth > > You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! > > Aaaargh! The dreaded Brad Guth Credentials discussion again!!!! > > Run away! Unlike yourself, I'm sticking with the regular laws of physics, and otherwise going along with the best available science that's replicated outside of your NASA/Apollo cult. Of what others have accomplished seems more than proof worthy enough as to how much fly-by-rocket energy a given moon mission requires per tonne of whatever's getting deployed into orbit. -- Brad Guth >> > You're the one claiming it's impossible, let's see _your_ credentials! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > otherwise going along with the best available science that's > replicated outside of your NASA/Apollo cult. Brad you ignorant slut! I didn't say anything about physics. I just flinched at the mention of "Brad Guth's Credentials". Last time this subject was brought up it precipitated well over one thousand replies. And of course, the answer was, he has none. > >> "EJAY" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > subject was brought up it precipitated well over one thousand replies. And > of course, the answer was, he has none. And is that why your physics is entirely different, and you don't have to worry about the replicated science of others? Got Venus? (why of course you don't) Got Kodak rad-hard film? (why of course you don't) Got that nifty fly-by-rocket laner? (why of course you don't) Got big enough rocket for getting nearly 50 tonnes so quickly situated into that circular lunar orbit? (why of course you don't) Got that born-again faith of your being a pretend atheist? (why of course you do) Got LLPOF as your very best friend? (that one you've got way more than your fair share of, and then some) -- Brad Guth >> >> "EJAY" <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > And is that why your physics is entirely different, and you don't have > to worry about the replicated science of others? What physics? I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about a phrase. But I guess you don't know the difference. > "BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message > > And is that why your physics is entirely different, and you don't have > > to worry about the replicated science of others? > > What physics? I'm not talking about physics. I'm talking about a phrase. > > But I guess you don't know the difference. In my father's day (he was born in 1892), "physic" was a term for laxatives. Perhaps that is what "Guthy Gander" means when he says that our physics are different from his. We are referring to science, while he refers to laxatives. >> "BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > our physics are different from his. We are referring to science, while > he refers to laxatives. That would explain how he doesn't understand a thing about science let alone have the capacity to debate beyond vulgarity and racism. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired > In article <pMPZi.68217$YL5.50...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > our physics are different from his. We are referring to science, while > he refers to laxatives. So you folks still don't have a freaking honest clue as to how in the hell they ever managed to hide Venus, much less safely fly-by-rocket onto that extremely electrostatic dusty, anticathode gamma reactive and somewhat salty old moon of ours. Figures, doesn't it. No wonder your puppet Hitler lost out on global domination, thanks to all the snookered and dumbfounded folks exactly like yourself that were more into your very own faith-based worth of global domination. Isn't greed and corruption of government a wonderful thing, especially if it's semitic formulated greed and corruption. -- Brad Guth > > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > any claim that your information is based on physics or replicated > science fact. BTW, Mars doesn't seem to have its fair share of salt. Go figure. -- Brad Guth > > > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > -- > Brad Guth Maybe the Jews took it! Anyway, how would you know how much salt Mars has? Have you been there testing the soil recently? > > > > > > > > > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > > > > > > > > > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > Maybe the Jews took it! Maybe them pesky Jews are also of what's keeping any such 3D interactive orbital simulator from ever showing us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Perhaps you could share as to what part of NASA's infowar fuckology do you folks continually brown-nose yourself with? > Anyway, how would you know how much salt Mars has? Have you been there > testing the soil recently? Multiple missions in orbit and on the deck are simply way more than perfectly good enough science as for telling if Mars has its fair share of salt, of which is does not. Go figure (must have been a fresh water mucky swamp of a planet w/o tides to speak of) -- Brad Guth >...and if those robotic androids (another oxymoron) happen to shoot >pictures of one of the landing sites and show the equipment left >there, then what? In a perfect world, that would be the end of the Moon Hoax conspiracy. In the real world, the conspiracy theorists will just claim the photos were faked, or the "real" photos intercepted by NASA, or that China was really in on it from the start. I'm almost morbidly curious about what they'd do if they read about Tsioklvsky and Goddard. > In a perfect world, that would be the end of the Moon Hoax conspiracy. > .....I'm almost morbidly curious about what they'd do if they read about > Tsioklvsky and Goddard. I'm not sure about Tsiolkovski, but Guthy has already incorporated Goddard into his "Zionist conspiracy" theory. Guthy must have a fascinating brain. I can't wait to hear about what they find, after they dissect it. > Guthy must have a fascinating brain. I can't wait to hear > about what they find, after they dissect it. Either Jimmy Hoffa or Salman Rhusdie >> In a perfect world, that would be the end of the Moon Hoax conspiracy. >> .....I'm almost morbidly curious about what they'd do if they read about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Guthy must have a fascinating brain. I can't wait to hear > about what they find, after they dissect it. My guess would be some kind of spongiform encephalopathy. > On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded. Apollo 13 lunar mission also left the launching pad at 13:13 hours. http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/apollo-13.htm On 9 Nov, 20:02, "maidenme...@googlemail.com" <maidenme...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded. > > Apollo 13 lunar mission also left the launching pad at 13:13 hours. > > http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo-13/apollo-13.htm I bet the lunar lander was guided from the Moon and back through the atmosphere by the 13th sock. > By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in > space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html Japan First Back To The Moon! / kT http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_frm/thread/f38a85929879b6a0 http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/20071113_kaguya_e.html That's absolutely right, however China is not exactly sitting on their extremely wise old butts, are they. BTW, notice how extremely dark and otherwise somewhat average coal like 0.11 or actually of a slightly sooty darker kind of soft albedo, that which our extremely dusty old and electrostatic charged moon really is, as having been so clearly JAXA/HVTV imaged within the very same FOV, as well as having been illuminated by the very same raw solar spectrum that's unavoidably skewed by the excess amount of those violet and UV photons. Do we see anything of that naked lunar terrain that's looking the least bit NASA/Apollo 0.65~0.075 albedo worthy, like a certain guano island as modified to suit? (silly question, as I didn't think so) Now imagine how much brighter than Earth the little violet color skewed pixel worth of Venus is going to look. -- Brad Guth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.