My last "They didn't go moon trip".
09-11-2007, 02:43 PM
#286
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 14,221
Car Info: 05 H2 SUT, 45 GPW, 10 Murano, 13 Boss 302
I base my reasoning on the technology of the day, the purpose of the mission and the evidence presented in the photos. The missing tracks are equivalent to finding a drop of water somewhere in the photo. There are things that should be and things that should not. The tracks are a physical anomaly that should be in the photos.
I am seeing that your mindset does not support deductive reasoning. You should not base your thought and beliefs on hear say. Having someone from NASA to profess a hoax should not be the driver in your decision.
I will make a comment on the Pearl Harbor attack on my new thread Pearl Harbor.
See you there.
I am seeing that your mindset does not support deductive reasoning. You should not base your thought and beliefs on hear say. Having someone from NASA to profess a hoax should not be the driver in your decision.
I will make a comment on the Pearl Harbor attack on my new thread Pearl Harbor.
See you there.
As for deductive reasoning, you are using a couple of photos to explain away thousands of photos, video, and data. Is it possible that there are no tracks shown in the photo - yes, it is possible. But it is also possible that the camera angle obscurs the tracks. We could argue about the possibilities all day long, but that is not proof one way or the other.
As for the technology being inadequate, unless you have studied structures, statics, dynamics, aerodynamics, a boatload of physics you're not qualified to make any judgements. Just because you say "it looks flimsy" doesn't mean it is. Your credibility was shot with your first post calling the lander a POS. If you could back that up with physics and engineering, I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.
As a mechanical engineer, I take great exception to someone making rash judgements on how something was built based on looks alone. I've studied the science and the engineering behind space flight and I know what the capabilities of that craft were.
Of course, I guess NASA could have just changed physics and engineering principles in all of the textbooks of the time (and for the future) so as to keep this insidious hoax alive.
That can be part of your next theory, along with Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Roswell, and the Holocaust.
09-11-2007, 03:05 PM
#289
I think you missed Mr. X's point entirely. Out of the thousands of people involved in the moon missions, how is it that none of the conspiracy theorists can drum up a single witness to say it was all a hoax? The odds of keeping something like that quiet for all these years are astronomical. In a theory full of supposition, how can you possibly explain that away?
As for deductive reasoning, you are using a couple of photos to explain away thousands of photos, video, and data. Is it possible that there are no tracks shown in the photo - yes, it is possible. But it is also possible that the camera angle obscurs the tracks. We could argue about the possibilities all day long, but that is not proof one way or the other.
As for the technology being inadequate, unless you have studied structures, statics, dynamics, aerodynamics, a boatload of physics you're not qualified to make any judgements. Just because you say "it looks flimsy" doesn't mean it is. Your credibility was shot with your first post calling the lander a POS. If you could back that up with physics and engineering, I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.
As a mechanical engineer, I take great exception to someone making rash judgements on how something was built based on looks alone. I've studied the science and the engineering behind space flight and I know what the capabilities of that craft were.
Of course, I guess NASA could have just changed physics and engineering principles in all of the textbooks of the time (and for the future) so as to keep this insidious hoax alive.
That can be part of your next theory, along with Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Roswell, and the Holocaust.
As for deductive reasoning, you are using a couple of photos to explain away thousands of photos, video, and data. Is it possible that there are no tracks shown in the photo - yes, it is possible. But it is also possible that the camera angle obscurs the tracks. We could argue about the possibilities all day long, but that is not proof one way or the other.
As for the technology being inadequate, unless you have studied structures, statics, dynamics, aerodynamics, a boatload of physics you're not qualified to make any judgements. Just because you say "it looks flimsy" doesn't mean it is. Your credibility was shot with your first post calling the lander a POS. If you could back that up with physics and engineering, I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.
As a mechanical engineer, I take great exception to someone making rash judgements on how something was built based on looks alone. I've studied the science and the engineering behind space flight and I know what the capabilities of that craft were.
Of course, I guess NASA could have just changed physics and engineering principles in all of the textbooks of the time (and for the future) so as to keep this insidious hoax alive.
That can be part of your next theory, along with Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Roswell, and the Holocaust.
the pentagon attack is sketchy at best.
why do you need aerodynamics in space?
we covered teh how many people need to know about the faking
09-11-2007, 03:06 PM
#290
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 996
I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.
OK,
what ever it takes to discredit me but it still doesn't answer that gating question.
You guys should not take these things personally but should realize that we are dealing with man and his ability to manipulate things.
P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.
OK,
what ever it takes to discredit me but it still doesn't answer that gating question.
You guys should not take these things personally but should realize that we are dealing with man and his ability to manipulate things.
P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.
09-11-2007, 03:08 PM
#291
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
aerodynamics and aerospace are usually covered in one major. Some colleges call it aeronautical and some call it astronautical and others call it aerospace.
09-11-2007, 03:17 PM
#292
isn't that like asking someone from philip morris if second hand smoke is bad for you?
09-11-2007, 03:19 PM
#294
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Peoples Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 14,221
Car Info: 05 H2 SUT, 45 GPW, 10 Murano, 13 Boss 302
I would listen to what you have to say. But since you made an unsubstantiated claim with regards to the engineering of the craft and flight systems, it made the rest of your arguments pointless.
OK,
what ever it takes to discredit me but it still doesn't answer that gating question.
You guys should not take these things personally but should realize that we are dealing with man and his ability to manipulate things.
P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.
OK,
what ever it takes to discredit me but it still doesn't answer that gating question.
You guys should not take these things personally but should realize that we are dealing with man and his ability to manipulate things.
P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.
And what does that last paragraph have to do with the price of tea in China?
09-11-2007, 03:21 PM
#296
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,585
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
P51 Mustang was fuel injection, the 1956 Corvett was also mechanical fuel injection, a 1970 Porsche had fuel injection. We as American did not see fuel injection in our auto's until the mid 80's. Why because gas was $.15 a gallon and it did not make those companies money.
09-11-2007, 04:01 PM
#300
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
so now i'm more confused. he says we don't have Fuel Injection until the mid-80s and unless he means EFI, then ya. Mechanical fuel injection is still fuel injection and we had it. Its just that it wasn't electronic.