Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"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.

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.

That should make his head simply implode.

:-P

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On Oct 14, 4:18*pm, "Scout"
wrote:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message

...









Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger:
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.

There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo.

to name a few:
If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly
very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can,

Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight
(particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum possible
weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance.

with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half
of the 'A'.

Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples or
bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over this row
of dimples/bumps.

If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg

Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and
turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during launch
pressed against the decal it stretched it into those dimples/bumps and the
lettering (which was probably printed on) either flaked off, stretched out
of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted.

There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not.

They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners were
oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above.

The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander.

Yep, so?

But we see something different, because there seem to be something
reflected, where darkness should be.

You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude?

That's going to impact what is being reflected.

The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but the
difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the surface
should have higher contrast).

That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture, focal
length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean you are
aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they did for the
one they used for the in orbit shots?

Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get greater
contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit background. Or
in an environment in which everything is subject to high illumination?

Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or aperture
in order to keep from over exposing the film.

Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the
most durable joint.

Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a 100+
years old that were riveted.

Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and it
has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength in a
lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters.

This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?).

If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem
discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high
temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those thrusters..

I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an in-depth
analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your conclusions seem
based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong with the photos.

Whole Lot of 'Rivets' in Aircraft . . . well at least
until composite-structures became the norm.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

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

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Scout" wrote in
:



"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...discovery-prom
pt 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.

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.

Surprisingly, that works.

That should make his head simply implode.

:-P







--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Thomas Heger wrote in
:

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...-discovery-pro
mpt 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).

Actually, the South tower fell first because there was more building for
that weakened structure to support.

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.

Actually, no, it didn't.

Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.

That's not true either. It just wasn't hit by an airliner. It was hit
by debris.

Actually I don't like the term 'truther'. And I don't like the term
'conspiracy theory', but these phrases are commonly used.

I really don't give a damn if you like it or not.

I think, if the government does does something illegal, than this
isn't a conspiracy. Its just illegal.

You can rest easy then, since it didn't happen.

I would suggest that you read Debunking 9/11 by Popular Mechanics. They
not only goes through all the major conspiracy claims but has executive
summaries of the actual reports, in addition to URLs where you can read,
at your heart's content, all 10,000 pages of them.

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





--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

RD Sandman wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"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...discovery-prom
pt 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.

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.


Surprisingly, that works.

But which way gives better MPG's?
:o

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Luke Gower wrote in :

RD Sandman wrote:

"Scout" wrote in
:



"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...mbi-discovery-
prom
pt 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.

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.


Surprisingly, that works.

But which way gives better MPG's?
:o


In this case, that would be OPV (Orbits Per Volt).

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"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.


So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did
not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ?

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy nuts

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.

yawn

And naturally you have some evidence to support this supposition?

You can also explain the bulging walls and other sides of structural
collapse noted prior to the building's collapse?

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.

Well, let's see. The people in the lander are going to be strapped down and
all they could take a picture of in any event would be a view out the front
of the lander.

The orbiter meanwhile is now ahead of the lander and the moment you fired
the engines on the lander would rapidly move away. Short of a really high
power telephoto, you couldn't take a meaningful picture of the lander from
the orbiter during the de-orbit burn, nor any particular reason to do so.
After all I doubt some moron may years in the future would contend the whole
thing was faked simply because they didn't take a picture just for him.

And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.

Yep, which is why weight was such an issue.

The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making the
rendezvous with the orbiter.

No more than any of the other times that spacecraft have met up in space,
and from the moon it would actually be easier since you would have no air
currents to throw you off your course during launch.

This is next to impossible, because there is no assistance from the ground,
helping to correct the flight path (nobody there, on moon surface).

Don't need it. One craft knows exactly where they are, the other knows where
they are, the rest is just math.

And completely impossible is, to store the needed fuel in a single craft.
(No gas station there, neither).

Actually with the small gravity well of the moon and no atmosphere it's
quite possible.

See the gravity well of the Earth is some 22 TIMES greater than is the
gravity well of the moon.

Here's a nice video with graphics to explain this to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBQHtF3WhMw

Further the lander doesn't even have to climb all the way out of that well.
It only has to reach a very low orbit to meet up with the orbiter which then
provides the rest of the thrust needed to return to Earth.

Heck, the orbiter's orbit was generally so low that it would have been
within the atmosphere around the Earth. But since the moon has no atmosphere
you could orbit at almost any height, as shown by the recent orbits just 13
miles up (ie 69,000 feet) below the service ceiling of many military
aircraft.

So combine a shallow gravity well, with low orbit and what do you have?

Answer - you need very little delta V to land or launch for said orbit
around a body without an atmosphere.

Once again, I will simply note that all you are showing is your ignorance of
the mechanics of space flight, not any flaws in what NASA did, or didn't do.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Gray Guest" wrote in message
4.100...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger:
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.



There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo.

to name a few:
If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and
certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can,

Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight
(particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum
possible weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance.


with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses
half of the 'A'.

Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples
or bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over
this row of dimples/bumps.

If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg

Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and
turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during
launch pressed against the decal it stretched it into those
dimples/bumps and the lettering (which was probably printed on) either
flaked off, stretched out of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted.


There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not.

They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners
were oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above.

The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander.

Yep, so?

But we see something different, because there seem to be something
reflected, where darkness should be.

You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude?

That's going to impact what is being reflected.

The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but
the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the
surface should have higher contrast).

That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture,
focal length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean
you are aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they
did for the one they used for the in orbit shots?

Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get
greater contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit
background. Or in an environment in which everything is subject to high
illumination?

Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or
aperture in order to keep from over exposing the film.


Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the
most durable joint.

Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a
100+ years old that were riveted.

Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and
it has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength
in a lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters.

This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?).

If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem
discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high
temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those
thrusters.

I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an
in-depth analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your
conclusions seem based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong
with the photos.



You know how Flying Fortresses look like what they are called when they
are
marching across the sky amid puffs of smoke?

I've been in one. On takeoff and in flight. Most aircraft are tin cans. It
was scary how loud the engines were through the tin aluminum fuselage. And
I got to ride up front for a bit. Unnerving sitting in the big plxy bubble
imagining FW flying in wing breast shooting at you at a closing rate of
north of 600+ MPH.

Very, very few airplanes were built, designed to be flying armored cars.

A Junkers purpose built trench strafer in the first WW.
The Sturmovik in WWII
And the modern day A-10.

Anything else that was bullet resistant it was an accident.

Most aircraft you can puncture with a Philips screwdriver.

Yep, on the apollo missions some metal used to contain the cabin pressure
was no thicker than aluminum foil. It was all they needed, and every ounce
was critical given how much fuel it took to get an ounce into orbit much
less to the moon and back.