A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 8th 12, 03:21 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Dec 7, 7:00*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:41*pm, wrote:


On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:


It's amazing there are still any of these people.


...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon landings were a hoax.


Go figger.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM


Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA


infomercial of “Let’s Go to the Moon”, with the closing line: “This


book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color”.


The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was that


of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,


extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface


tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all


recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an


ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics


that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of any


excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation


issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype


implying that they’d gotten themselves there using a poorly documented


fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no


powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this


spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability


issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.


Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there’s


still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that of


its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of


day-1, though to be fair there’s still nothing that has been made


publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of those


mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as


to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such


photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here


on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. *Oddly


those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented their


Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,


Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been


easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. *Of course, even


Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that


large or colorfully depicted.


Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have


managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated


contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel and


mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo


missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any


interactive instruments to work with. *This means there are still a


great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,


including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus


solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator


electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts


from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of


protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec, not


to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing any


of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the


gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.


The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our NASA/


Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg


(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound


to Earth) of course this wasn’t even known at the time. *No wonder


Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar


orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.


So, there is no question that we’ll need to go to our moon in order to


exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world


missions. *Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of


humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to


resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the


12+ extra meters of ocean level that’ll drive the lower 95% to fight


for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of


global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most


0.1%.


*http://translate.google.com/#


*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth


Venus”,GuthVenus


*“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in


question:


*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...


LOL, you are clearly nucking futs.


Do you have a fly-by-rocket lander of that mutually perpetrated cold-
war era, without any powerful momentum reaction gyros and only a
pathetic computer that couldn't possibly maintain any controlled
downrange to a soft landing with their CG and mass constantly
changing?

Any movements inside of that craft would have also altered their
desired thrust compensations, not to mention what their continual loss
of mass and the ever changing CG making each and every reaction thrust
correction, its thrust direction and its timing different.

If they did all of this exactly as reported to us, and having managed
without a scratch, then perhaps computers and powerful momentum
reaction gyros are simply not going to be necessary.
  #22  
Old December 8th 12, 05:55 AM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 7, 7:00*am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:41*pm, wrote:


On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:


It's amazing there are still any of these people.


...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards
would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon
landings were a hoax.


Go figger.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * OM


Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA


infomercial of ³Let¹s Go to the Moon², with the closing line: ³This


book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color².


The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was that


of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,


extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface


tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all


recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an


ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics


that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of any


excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation


issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype


implying that they¹d gotten themselves there using a poorly documented


fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no


powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this


spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability


issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.


Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there¹s


still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that of


its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of


day-1, though to be fair there¹s still nothing that has been made


publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of those


mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as


to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such


photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here


on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. *Oddly


those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented their


Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,


Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been


easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. *Of course, even


Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that


large or colorfully depicted.


Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have


managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated


contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel and


mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo


missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any


interactive instruments to work with. *This means there are still a


great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,


including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus


solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator


electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts


from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of


protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec, not


to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing any


of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the


gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.


The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our NASA/


Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg


(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound


to Earth) of course this wasn¹t even known at the time. *No wonder


Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar


orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.


So, there is no question that we¹ll need to go to our moon in order to


exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world


missions. *Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of


humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to


resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the


12+ extra meters of ocean level that¹ll drive the lower 95% to fight


for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of


global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most


0.1%.


*http://translate.google.com/#


*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/²Guth


Venus²,GuthVenus


*³GuthVenus² 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in


question:


*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...


LOL, you are clearly nucking futs.


Do you have a fly-by-rocket lander of that mutually perpetrated cold-
war era, without any powerful momentum reaction gyros and only a
pathetic computer that couldn't possibly maintain any controlled
downrange to a soft landing with their CG and mass constantly
changing?

Any movements inside of that craft would have also altered their
desired thrust compensations, not to mention what their continual loss
of mass and the ever changing CG making each and every reaction thrust
correction, its thrust direction and its timing different.

If they did all of this exactly as reported to us, and having managed
without a scratch, then perhaps computers and powerful momentum
reaction gyros are simply not going to be necessary.


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.
  #23  
Old December 10th 12, 06:50 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Dec 7, 8:55*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 7, 7:00 am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:41 pm, wrote:


On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:


It's amazing there are still any of these people.


...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards
would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the Moon
landings were a hoax.


Go figger.


OM


Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA


infomercial of Let s Go to the Moon , with the closing line: This


book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color .


The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was that


of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,


extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface


tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all


recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an


ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics


that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of any


excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation


issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype


implying that they d gotten themselves there using a poorly documented


fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no


powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this


spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability


issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.


Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there s


still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that of


its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of


day-1, though to be fair there s still nothing that has been made


publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of those


mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as


to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such


photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here


on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. Oddly


those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented their


Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,


Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been


easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. Of course, even


Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that


large or colorfully depicted.


Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have


managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated


contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel and


mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo


missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any


interactive instruments to work with. This means there are still a


great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,


including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus


solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator


electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts


from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of


protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec, not


to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing any


of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the


gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.


The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our NASA/


Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg


(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound


to Earth) of course this wasn t even known at the time. No wonder


Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar


orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.


So, there is no question that we ll need to go to our moon in order to


exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world


missions. Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of


humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to


resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the


12+ extra meters of ocean level that ll drive the lower 95% to fight


for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of


global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most


0.1%.


http://translate.google.com/#


Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/ Guth


Venus ,GuthVenus


GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in


question:


https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...


LOL, you are clearly nucking futs.


Do you have a fly-by-rocket lander of that mutually perpetrated cold-
war era, without any powerful momentum reaction gyros and only a
pathetic computer that couldn't possibly maintain any controlled
downrange to a soft landing with their CG and mass constantly
changing?


Any movements inside of that craft would have also altered their
desired thrust compensations, not to mention what their continual loss
of mass and the ever changing CG making each and every reaction thrust
correction, its thrust direction and its timing different.


If they did all of this exactly as reported to us, and having managed
without a scratch, then perhaps computers and powerful momentum
reaction gyros are simply not going to be necessary.


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?
  #24  
Old December 10th 12, 06:18 PM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 7, 8:55*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 7, 7:00 am, Dean wrote:
On Thursday, December 6, 2012 5:15:03 PM UTC-5, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 12, 3:41 pm, wrote:


On Friday, September 21, 2012 3:58:49 PM UTC-5, Matt wrote:


It's amazing there are still any of these people.


...The sadder part is that if we never had a Moon, these ****tards
would try to claim NASA destroyed it to cover up the fact that the
Moon
landings were a hoax.


Go figger.


OM


Way back in November 1977, National Geographic ran a very small NASA


infomercial of Let s Go to the Moon , with the closing line: This


book is illustrated with official NASA photographs in full color .


The little eyecandy image associated with this book promotion was
that


of an inert colorless moon offering a considerably reflective albedo,


extensively dust free, with excellent surface clumping and/or surface


tension in order to nicely support everything without a hitch, all


recorded by way of using ordinary Kodak film in essentially an


ordinary but quality camera with only the very best unfiltered optics


that oddly had no harsh illumination contrast issues, no issues of
any


excessive heat or any sort of local, cosmic or solar influx radiation


issues to contend with, and otherwise this continued NASA/Apollo hype


implying that they d gotten themselves there using a poorly
documented


fly-by-rocket lander that had less computer than a Casio watch, no


powerful momentum reaction gyros, and their having soft-landed this


spacecraft with a downrange controlled flight as having no stability


issues and otherwise fuel and payload to spare.


Published as of only 5 years after the Apollo 17 mission, there s


still no mention of their fly-by-rocket lander technology, nor that
of


its perfection performance and its one-off flawless piloting as of


day-1, though to be fair there s still nothing that has been made


publicly accessible as to explaining such reliable capability of
those


mostly manual piloted landers, nor offering rational explanations as


to their extremely good Kodak film, camera and lens results of such


photographics of minimal contrast that have never been achieved here


on Earth with any singular spotlight source of illumination. Oddly


those terrific cameras and their best available optics prevented
their


Kodak film from ever recording the likes of Saturn, Jupiter, Mars,


Venus or Mercury, that which at one time or another had to have been


easily viewed above the physically dark horizon. Of course, even


Earth was imaged as a pastel kind of planet that was never all that


large or colorfully depicted.


Oddly when our naked moon gets photographed from Earth, amateurs have


managed to capture those natural mineral colors in their saturated


contrasty images of our moon, which look nothing like those pastel
and


mostly monochromatic versions provided to us by way of those Apollo


missions that also gave independent scientists nothing of any


interactive instruments to work with. This means there are still a


great many unknowns about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon,


including its unavoidable photographic contrast issues, local plus


solar and cosmic radiation factors, considerable terminator


electrostatic considerations, physical dust and those pesky impacts


from encountering particles in addition to all the raw solar wind of


protons and electrons impacting and/or zooming past at 30+ km/sec,
not


to mention those small meteor encounters that have nothing slowing
any


of those down or especially for avoiding those encountering the


gravity boosted velocity adding 2.4 km/s to their already fast speed.


The considerable sodium and local gamma was never an issue to our
NASA/


Apollo era, and our second moon Cruithne of 5+ km and 1.3e14 kg


(discovered October 10, 1986 and clearly orbital associated as bound


to Earth) of course this wasn t even known at the time. No wonder


Sirius and even the nearby planet Venus were never spotted from lunar


orbit or from any of its physically dark surface.


So, there is no question that we ll need to go to our moon in order
to


exploit it and utilize its L1 for accomplishing other off-world


missions. Relocating our moon to Earth L1 can wait until 95% of


humanity is systematically culled or becomes naturally extinct due to


resource shortages, global famine and proxy wars due to AGW and the


12+ extra meters of ocean level that ll drive the lower 95% to fight


for their survival that will be futile considering the depletion of


global resources, greed, hoarding and skulduggery by the upper most


0.1%.


http://translate.google.com/#


Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/ Guth


Venus ,GuthVenus


GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in


question:


https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow..
.


LOL, you are clearly nucking futs.


Do you have a fly-by-rocket lander of that mutually perpetrated cold-
war era, without any powerful momentum reaction gyros and only a
pathetic computer that couldn't possibly maintain any controlled
downrange to a soft landing with their CG and mass constantly
changing?


Any movements inside of that craft would have also altered their
desired thrust compensations, not to mention what their continual loss
of mass and the ever changing CG making each and every reaction thrust
correction, its thrust direction and its timing different.


If they did all of this exactly as reported to us, and having managed
without a scratch, then perhaps computers and powerful momentum
reaction gyros are simply not going to be necessary.


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.
  #25  
Old December 11th 12, 12:25 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Dec 10, 9:18*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:

I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.


In other words, you FUD-masters still have no actual Apollo era fly-by-
rocket landers, but someday if we give you enough of our hard earned
loot and with no strings attached, you'll create such reliable and
easily controllable machines that don't hardly need fancy computers or
any of those powerful momentum reaction gyros, and they would offer us
fuel and payload to spare.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus
“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
  #26  
Old December 11th 12, 06:23 PM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 10, 9:18*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:

I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.


In other words, you FUD-masters still have no actual Apollo era fly-by-
rocket landers, but someday if we give you enough of our hard earned
loot and with no strings attached, you'll create such reliable and
easily controllable machines that don't hardly need fancy computers or
any of those powerful momentum reaction gyros, and they would offer us
fuel and payload to spare.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/²Guth
Venus²,GuthVenus
³GuthVenus² 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...deshow/5630418
595926178146


Nobody said that it was easily-controlled.

That is why experienced, talented test pilots were chosen to fly them.
In fact, Armstrong had to eject from the trainer after he got into an
unrecoverable attitude/oscillation.

Only the likes of Guthy Gander look upon the task as impossible, owing
to their limited intellect or experience.
  #27  
Old December 15th 12, 09:59 PM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Dec 11, 9:23*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 10, 9:18 am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.


In other words, you FUD-masters still have no actual Apollo era fly-by-
rocket landers, but someday if we give you enough of our hard earned
loot and with no strings attached, you'll create such reliable and
easily controllable machines that don't hardly need fancy computers or
any of those powerful momentum reaction gyros, and they would offer us
fuel and payload to spare.


*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/ Guth
Venus ,GuthVenus
* GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...
*595926178146


Nobody said that it was easily-controlled.

That is why experienced, talented test pilots were chosen to fly them.
In fact, Armstrong had to eject from the trainer after he got into an
unrecoverable attitude/oscillation.

Only the likes of Guthy Gander look upon the task as impossible, owing
to their limited intellect or experience.


Except there was never a reliable prototype fly-by=rocket trainer to
learn any first-hand pilot expertise from, and essentially there still
isn't.
  #28  
Old January 4th 13, 01:33 PM
NormanF NormanF is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Jan 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
It's amazing there are still any of these people. We have pictures of the flags, the footprint trails, the rover trails, the rovers, the surface experiments, and the descent stages and surrounding surface scarred by the liftoff.... at some point, it becomes eaiser and cheaper to actually fly the mission than to carry the fakery to that level.
I totally agree. I got so fed up I felt I had to do something, small in scale though it is. Therefore I came up with a t-shirt. It's an image of the Moon along with the words "They Went".

(You might see the same phrase on some YouTube comment pages too...)

I thought it might be something the good people on this site might be interested in - if not they might still enjoy the sentiment.

It's here at SpreadShirt. They ship to Europe and USA amongst other destinations.
  #29  
Old February 2nd 13, 03:04 AM posted to sci.space.history
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:

On Dec 11, 9:23*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 10, 9:18 am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the
test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.


In other words, you FUD-masters still have no actual Apollo era fly-by-
rocket landers, but someday if we give you enough of our hard earned
loot and with no strings attached, you'll create such reliable and
easily controllable machines that don't hardly need fancy computers or
any of those powerful momentum reaction gyros, and they would offer us
fuel and payload to spare.


*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/ Guth
Venus ,GuthVenus
* GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...
*595926178146


Nobody said that it was easily-controlled.

That is why experienced, talented test pilots were chosen to fly them.
In fact, Armstrong had to eject from the trainer after he got into an
unrecoverable attitude/oscillation.

Only the likes of Guthy Gander look upon the task as impossible, owing
to their limited intellect or experience.


Except there was never a reliable prototype fly-by=rocket trainer to
learn any first-hand pilot expertise from, and essentially there still
isn't.


Not true! In fact, I just got back from dinner with a friend who flew
the trainer. It did take some piloting ability to fly it.
  #30  
Old February 4th 13, 03:38 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Thought about Apollo conspiracy silliness

On Feb 1, 6:04*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:









On Dec 11, 9:23*am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
*Brad Guth wrote:


On Dec 10, 9:18 am, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article
,
Brad Guth wrote:


I can introduce you th one of the men who developed it. He was the
Astronaut Office rep for the Lunar Lander at Grumman and flew the
test
articles.


That's a very good plan, but is there anything he's going to offer or
be allowed to divulge that isn't already published?


Only that you are full of ****.


In other words, you FUD-masters still have no actual Apollo era fly-by-
rocket landers, but someday if we give you enough of our hard earned
loot and with no strings attached, you'll create such reliable and
easily controllable machines that don't hardly need fancy computers or
any of those powerful momentum reaction gyros, and they would offer us
fuel and payload to spare.


*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/ Guth
Venus ,GuthVenus
* GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...
*595926178146


Nobody said that it was easily-controlled.


That is why experienced, talented test pilots were chosen to fly them..
In fact, Armstrong had to eject from the trainer after he got into an
unrecoverable attitude/oscillation.


Only the likes of Guthy Gander look upon the task as impossible, owing
to their limited intellect or experience.


Except there was never a reliable prototype fly-by=rocket trainer to
learn any first-hand pilot expertise from, and essentially there still
isn't.


Not true! In fact, I just got back from dinner with a friend who flew
the trainer. It did take some piloting ability to fly it.


Except that trainer wasn't a true fly-by-rocket lander. It had a jet
engine and multiple stabilizing systems which a real fly-by-rocket
lander simply didn't have.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hazmat silliness etc. (was Mercurachrome) Andrew Usher Astronomy Misc 1 November 13th 08 03:49 AM
Conversations with Apollo Podcast Episode 4 - Apollo Team Support, David A. Ballard [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 September 5th 07 08:29 PM
Conversations with Apollo Podcast Episode 4 - Apollo Team Support, David A. Ballard [email protected] Policy 0 September 5th 07 08:29 PM
Apollo Quarantine Even Shoddier Than I Thought Proponent History 4 September 7th 06 04:57 PM
A Revolution In Human silliness Paul B UK Astronomy 2 May 24th 04 11:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.