Neil Armstrong has Died

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which part of "your choice" what you believe is it that continues to
leave your poor mind befuddled?

I don't feel I have a choice.

Of course you don't. Yet you continue to go on and on about it. Which
part of "your choice" what you believe is it that continues to leave
your poor mind befuddled?

Is there any chance we can put this to bed?

*You* go ahead and believe whatever you want.

Some of us - I don't think I'm alone in this - will continue to operate
on a rational basis, evaluating the best available historical evidence,
and drawing conclusions therefrom.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Is there any chance we can put this to bed?

Not as long as you are apparently compelled to natter on and on about
it, no.

http://xkcd.com/386/

*You* go ahead and believe whatever you want.


I intend to.

We're getting somewhere...

Some of us - I don't think I'm alone in this - will continue to operate
on a rational basis, evaluating the best available historical evidence,
and drawing conclusions therefrom.


And the rest of you (and you're not alone in this, either) will
continue to operate on a non-rational basis, evaluating your cherry
picked data and ignoring the rest.

*I* have not got an axe to grind.

I would *love* to believe that NA piloted the LM down to a safe landing
on a wing, a prayer, and a few whiffs of rocket fuel left in the tanks.

But it didn't happen like that.

Unless you've got better data than nasa.gov.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which part of "believe whatever you want" is it that is STILL leaving
you confused?

All of it.

Russell's teapot [1] comes to mind.

Meanwhile,
1 - how much fuel / hover time remaining do you believe A11 had?
2 - how much do you believe they thought they had at the time?
3 - and on the basis of what evidence?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot [2]
[2] this is not, of course, a precise analogy.

Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip questions

snip avoidance

sigh

On 5/10/2012 9:37 AM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which part of "believe whatever you want" is it that is STILL leaving
you confused?

All of it.

Russell's teapot [1] comes to mind.

Meanwhile,
1 - how much fuel / hover time remaining do you believe A11 had?
2 - how much do you believe they thought they had at the time?
3 - and on the basis of what evidence?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot [2]
[2] this is not, of course, a precise analogy.


Fred's a troll; he's not worth the worry. He will argue an argument as
if he was the only one who is right. That will lead him to becoming
even more aggressive in his approach and that will lead to him referring
to you as various things which you _may_ not be.

On 7/10/2012 7:21 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:

On 5/10/2012 9:37 AM, Fevric J. Glandules wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which part of "believe whatever you want" is it that is STILL leaving
you confused?

All of it.

Russell's teapot [1] comes to mind.

Meanwhile,
1 - how much fuel / hover time remaining do you believe A11 had?
2 - how much do you believe they thought they had at the time?
3 - and on the basis of what evidence?


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot [2]
[2] this is not, of course, a precise analogy.


Fred's a troll; he's not worth the worry. He will argue an argument as
if he was the only one who is right. That will lead him to becoming
even more aggressive in his approach and that will lead to him referring
to you as various things which you _may_ not be.


You're tagging the wrong person as a troll, Alan. I've told this
wight that he's more than welcome to have it his way if he wants, yet
he's still nattering on and on. I just sometimes like to bait their
end of the line and see how long it takes them to figure out they're
tugging on the hook in their own lip.

Of course, your posting is mostly sour grapes, so I suppose you should
just be ignored as another troll.


You are the one who's keeping on about it. You are a troll. This is
the last time I will respond to any of your posts.

On Oct 5, 4:31*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:

snip questions

snip avoidance

sigh

Fred is always the guy with that smirk on his face in a crowded
elevator, when everyone else is gasping for fresh air.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Oct 4, 4:37*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Which part of "believe whatever you want" is it that is STILL leaving
you confused?

All of it.

Russell's teapot [1] comes to mind.

Meanwhile,
1 - how much fuel / hover time remaining do you believe A11 had?
2 - how much do you believe they thought they had at the time?
3 - and on the basis of what evidence?

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot[2]
[2] this is not, of course, a precise analogy.

The only evidence of their fly-by-rocket "hover time" is via the NASA/
Apollo era of subjective documentation that can't be forensic verified
or otherwise objectively test-proven.

By all modern considerations for accomplishing such a stable and thus
failsafe suitable fly-by-rocket lander with fuel and payload to spare,
requires more fuel than any of those Apollo landers ever had to spare
unless everything went exactly as planned with no significant
downrange capability of offering optional landing sites nor
maneuvering options.

What's truly needed is an actual Apollo era lander that can be
rescaled to suit modern prototype R&D testing. NASA simply isn't
capable of providing this level of objective research capability, so
we basically got nothing original to go by or rescale from.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Sep 30, 4:03*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Is there any chance we can put this to bed?

Not as long as you are apparently compelled to natter on and on about
it, no.

http://xkcd.com/386/

*You* go ahead and believe whatever you want.

I intend to.

We're getting somewhere...

Some of us - I don't think I'm alone in this - will continue to operate
on a rational basis, evaluating the best available historical evidence,
and drawing conclusions therefrom.

And the rest of you (and you're not alone in this, either) will
continue to operate on a non-rational basis, evaluating your cherry
picked data and ignoring the rest.

*I* have not got an axe to grind.

I would *love* to believe that NA piloted the LM down to a safe landing
on a wing, a prayer, and a few whiffs of rocket fuel left in the tanks.

But it didn't happen like that.

Unless you've got better data than nasa.gov.

Fred never has squat of anything original or independently verifiable.

On Sep 29, 1:39*pm, "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote:
Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Which part of "your choice" what you believe is it that continues to
leave your poor mind befuddled?

I don't feel I have a choice.

Of course you don't. *Yet you continue to go on and on about it. Which
part of "your choice" what you believe is it that continues to leave
your poor mind befuddled?

Is there any chance we can put this to bed?

*You* go ahead and believe whatever you want.

Some of us - I don't think I'm alone in this - will continue to operate
on a rational basis, evaluating the best available historical evidence,
and drawing conclusions therefrom.

That alone is a very big mainstream status-quo kind of no-no, of
questioning anything of the NASA/Apollo era. You might as well be
accusing Jesus Christ of being Muslim instead of Jewish.