|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
(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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hazmat silliness etc. (was Mercurachrome) | Andrew Usher | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 13th 08 02:49 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 |