Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:
"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM,
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
--
..
Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans
got ripped off...
TH
TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program
one does wonder . . . ~ RHF
Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in
the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that
subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet,
watching films on YouTube and so forth).
Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.
About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within
the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.
Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only
one)
Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg
It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from
the landing module 'Eagle'.
But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.
Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go
to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass
under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and
then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the
area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft
is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a
lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit
the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if
you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly
off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing.
Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher,
let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that
occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out
the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.
So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.
"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."
http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt
s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/
Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?
"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of
the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet
Earth. "
http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html
Damn, there it is again.
"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space
Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the
ISS"
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge
And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.
"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the
shuttle Discovery in June"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/
So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud,
or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as
photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the
mechanics of space flight?
Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely
looking for some conspiracy to believe in.
Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA.
I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own
'theory', that circles around flight 93.
There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was
intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my
assumption).
It goes like this:
I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'.
The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets hit,
pentagon gets hit.
South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls
down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because
building 7 is behind it).
Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he
had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes). Than
he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done.
Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't.
make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake.
Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.
Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term
'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used.
I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this isn't
a conspiracy. Its just illegal.
That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research,
investigation or critical thought.
I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind.
In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster.
The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space
capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft in
horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust
(against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or
pictures. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.
The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making
the rendezvous with the orbiter. This is next to impossible, because
there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight
path (nobody there, on moon surface). And completely impossible is, to
store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there, neither).
TH