Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!
The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what
makes this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

So I decided, I don't want to do that. This decision is absolutely my
right and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to
calculate the orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.


TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On Oct 18, 8:05*am, Gray Guest wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" wrote :











"Gray Guest" wrote in message
4.100...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have
GPS, that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

How does he think ballistic calculations were done back then? American
warships were getting first shot hits on a moving target form a moving gun
platform in WWII! The moment guns could fire other than direct fire
ballistics became an issue and ballistic tables were generated - by hand.

Lordy, what has the world come to?

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Now Now "GG" Don't Go 'Ballistic' !

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On 10/18/2011 10:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 18:27, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g42k9F672U1
@mid.individual.net:

What if these 'theories' are in fact true.

So far, none of them have proved to be.

Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government?
No good things, I guess.

Most folks in government are just like you and me. They go to work, they
try to do a good job and then come home.



I do not agree. Do you know, why 'conspiracy theories' bear this name?
The claim is actually, that there are hidden forces, that try to
manipulate the society by hidden means.

Since they are hidden, these issues are not openly discussed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8

I really liked JFK and especially this speech..


Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is
the possibility of massive violence in your country.

There is the possibility of violence in virtually all countries. Yours,
mine, the one across the river....

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a
peaceful manner.

We do. My suggestion is that you should mind your own business and fix
things in your country rather than to try and fit conspiracy theories to
ours.


Well this is in fact true and everything you can do in reality is local.
So I try to fix things in my neighbourhood or in my own vicinity.

But the UseNet gives us the unique opportunity to discuss such subjects
around the globe, almost in realtime.


TH


You and I agree here, probably different reasons though, the mafia and
criminals, tired of spending large amounts of time in prison,
infiltrated the public servant offices of the USA ... they are paid,
protected and supported by the criminal rich elite ... and perhaps those
too ignorant to realize what is happening.

However, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ...
the American citizens are waking up ...

Regards,
JS

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On 10/18/2011 12:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:05 am, Gray wrote:
wrote :











"Gray wrote in message
.100...
Thomas wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have
GPS, that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before all
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.

How does he think ballistic calculations were done back then? American
warships were getting first shot hits on a moving target form a moving gun
platform in WWII! The moment guns could fire other than direct fire
ballistics became an issue and ballistic tables were generated - by hand.

Lordy, what has the world come to?

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Now Now "GG" Don't Go 'Ballistic' !
.

Probably was fired by a damn poor marksman also ...

Regards,
JS

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On 10/18/2011 10:42 AM, Scout wrote:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

snip



Since I met you, you were a loon, nothing has gotten better with time ...

Regards,
JS

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

On 10/18/2011 11:56 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On
the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!
The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what
makes this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

So I decided, I don't want to do that. This decision is absolutely my
right and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to
calculate the orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.


TH



You need to review the past posts of "the scout", this is just a mental
case attempting to be a troll ... hang it up ... have discussions with
lunatics is never fruitful ... although they might be fruits ...

Regards,
JS

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

RHF wrote in news:7e603e5d-2937-43c3-abaa-
:

On Oct 18, 8:05*am, Gray Guest wrote:
"SaPeIsMa" wrote
innews:HoSdnYKjGKp9KAHTnZ2dnUVZ_h
:











"Gray Guest" wrote in message
4.100...
Thomas Heger wrote in news:9g1pg5FcguU1
@mid.individual.net:

Well, I would agree to 'just math and knowing where things are'.

But that 'just math' is quite challenging, if you have only a
handcranked 'computer' with a few k Ram.

And knowing where everything is is difficult, too. Today they have
GPS, that would help a lot - if installed at the moon.

But without radar and satellite navigation things are VERY di

Are you a complete and utter moron?

How do you think people navigated across open oceans or seas before
al
l
that crap was invented?

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.

I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed
was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-
Mart.

How does he think ballistic calculations were done back then? American
warships were getting first shot hits on a moving target form a moving
gu
n
platform in WWII! The moment guns could fire other than direct fire
ballistics became an issue and ballistic tables were generated - by
hand.

Lordy, what has the world come to?

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Now Now "GG" Don't Go 'Ballistic' !
.


It just baffles me that people this stupid vote. No wonder we are so
screwed up.

--
Words of wisdom

What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Am 18.10.2011 22:07, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/18/2011 10:16 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 18:27, schrieb RD Sandman:
Thomas wrote in news:9g42k9F672U1
@mid.individual.net:

What if these 'theories' are in fact true.

So far, none of them have proved to be.

Not every one of course, but
one of them. What would it tell you about the people in the government?
No good things, I guess.

Most folks in government are just like you and me. They go to work, they
try to do a good job and then come home.



I do not agree. Do you know, why 'conspiracy theories' bear this name?
The claim is actually, that there are hidden forces, that try to
manipulate the society by hidden means.

Since they are hidden, these issues are not openly discussed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeYgLLahHv8

I really liked JFK and especially this speech..


Hope everything comes to a good end. But there are dangers and that is
the possibility of massive violence in your country.

There is the possibility of violence in virtually all countries. Yours,
mine, the one across the river....

This could not be beneficial for the rest of the world. My suggestion
would be, that Americans try to solve their issues, possibly in a
peaceful manner.

We do. My suggestion is that you should mind your own business and fix
things in your country rather than to try and fit conspiracy theories to
ours.


Well this is in fact true and everything you can do in reality is local.
So I try to fix things in my neighbourhood or in my own vicinity.

But the UseNet gives us the unique opportunity to discuss such subjects
around the globe, almost in realtime.


TH


You and I agree here, probably different reasons though, the mafia and
criminals, tired of spending large amounts of time in prison,
infiltrated the public servant offices of the USA ... they are paid,
protected and supported by the criminal rich elite ... and perhaps those
too ignorant to realize what is happening.

However, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ...
the American citizens are waking up ...


The common people in your country - like in mine - are 'milked' by
self-proclaimed elites. If not by them, there are the criminals, that
demand their share.

The common people cannot do very much, but certain things are possible.
I think, if people start to care about their own affairs and try to fix
things, that are actually in reach, than this could add up to a
generally better world.

I mean things like rubble in the streets or the 'pollution' a person
applies to his environment. This could all be reduced to make way for
more healthy developments.

There are lots of things, people - unknowingly - do, that symbolize
death or destruction. This is, what makes crowds look like they do. Lots
of music for example is full of criminal themes, praises the use of
drugs and tell youngsters, how to mess up relationships. Films, comics,
computer games all suggest, that criminal life is more 'fun'. Interiors,
tattoos, jewellery, clothing are often full of skulls and demons. This
is all sick to some extend and should be reduced.

An individual gives a more positive appearance, if the person is not
full of alcohol or sedatives, kind of washed and dressed in fresh clothes.

Now imagine, that all the people would do that: live happy and healthy
and try to imagine, how a city would look like. Certainly different, I
presume.

Once people realize, that they can live a better life and try to achieve
this, the society would slowly change. This could free energies, that
enable people to take back control upon the own affairs.

The thread upon the common people will fall together once they realize,
that the government belongs to them and not the other way round. This
could be achieved, if the little officials are closer bound to laws and
small crimes by officials are actually prosecuted. All these things are
already illegal, like corruption, inside trading, drug or arms
trafficking, blackmailing, violence..

This is just the opposite of what those elites want, since they want to
milk the common people.

TH

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

Let the Record show that Gray Guest on or
about Tue, 18 Oct 2011 15:05:53 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

How do you think navigators, navigated?

You will deny every aspect of reality to feed your delusions.


I'll also point out that in the 60s there were no handheld calculators
that did various algebraic and trigonometrical functions.
You had slide rules for 3 meaningful digits and log tables for more
meaningful digits.
And computers were mainframes that had very few real-time applications
where you could dynamically change the data set on the fly, and
immediately recalculate. Not to mention that their processing speed was
slower than a cheap $5 calculator you pick up at Walgreens or Wal-Mart.


How does he think ballistic calculations were done back then? American
warships were getting first shot hits on a moving target form a moving gun
platform in WWII! The moment guns could fire other than direct fire
ballistics became an issue and ballistic tables were generated - by hand.

Hand cranked calculators. Dr Feynman wrote about them at the Los
Alamos labs - having a room full of people on calculators, grinding
out the numbers. "Programming" the work flow was one of those marvels
of "modern science".
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk

Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
 

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 19:42, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 18.10.2011 10:14, schrieb Scout:


"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 17.10.2011 07:01, schrieb Scout:


..

For Earth orbit you need much faster flight than you would need to
stay in orbit around the moon, but nevertheless it is quite fast. On
Earth it took a Saturn V rocket, to lift the craft into orbit. On
the
Moon it would take less fuel, but way more, than the few gallons,
they
had in the lander.

Ok, let's see your math.

I mean if you know they needed more, then clearly you have calculated
all this out and know exactly how much they would need and whether
they
could have that much on the lander.

So let's see your work.

---- Insert mathematical proof here.

Here I will even aid you with the specifications for the mass,
amount of
fuel, type of fuel, specific impulse, thrust provided, available
delta-V, and so on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_...Specifications


Well, I'm a little too lazy, but a rough calculation is possible:

There is the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
velocity_final=v_exhaust* ln(mass_start/mass_finish)

V_end= 2200 m/s * ln (4547 kg/(4547-2353) kg)

that is :
v_end approx. 1603 m/s

this is an estimated calculation without gravity.

the final velocity is reduced by
delta v = g_moon * (time of engine running)

Don't know that number (time_ engine)

Maybe 100 seconds (???)

makes:
delta v = 1.6 m/s²*100 s=160 m/s

What gives a rough estimate for the final velocity of the landers
ascending stage of
v_end = 1440 m/s.

Now the orbital velocity had to be compared. But I don't have the data
and actually I'm too lazy to find them out. But usual orbits should be
a little less than escape velocity, what is
v_orbit_escape = 2380 m/s.

V_end is a rough estimate ('thumb times pi'). For better calculations
someone with more experience in rocket science is needed.

I cannot even tell you, if the ascent stage is fast enough or not. But
my intuition tells me, it is not.


IOW, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too
lazy to do the work needed to find out if what you think actually has
merit or is simply bat **** crazy.


I haven't claimed to be a rocket scientist. I'm totally happy with an
rough estimate. I could do it better, for sure, but do not want.

What you have isn't even a rought estimate that applies. You simply
threw some stuff up there, came up with some answers, but didn't use the
data from the apollo program, which it should be noted I was even nice
enough to lead you to by the hand, much less show that the results
produced proved that a landing and take-off physically could not occur
given those conditions. You simply flopped around trying to put together
an argument.

Free hint: If you're going to say someone else is lying, then you need
to make sure you have your ducks in a row and can PROVE IT.

All you've shown is that you are an empty headed conspiracy theorist,
with lots of notions, but no facts, no proof, and from all evidence
absolutely NO desire to find out what the facts really are.

You are absolutely wrong!

Then let's see your proof. Not some bull**** hack job you threw together,
but conclusive factual objective mathematical PROOF.....

Otherwise, I'm right.


The rocket equation is a method to calculate the final velocity of a
single staged rocket.

The ascent stage would fit to 'rocket', even if doesn't look like. It
had - of course - only one stage.

The rocket equation ignores gravity. The moon has low gravity, what makes
this equation even more usable.

The precise orbit of the orbiter I could figure out, but that would be
'work', while typing stuff into the UseNet qualifies as 'leisure'.

See what I mean.....no desire to find/figure out the actual facts.

So I decided, I don't want to do that.

IOW, screw figuring out the facts.

This decision is absolutely my right

Absolutely, you have every right to be as stupid and ignorant as you
chose....but don't confuse that with being informed.


and nobody could hold me responsible, because I refuse to calculate the
orbit of the command module of Apollo 11.

So basically, you've got a lot of hot air....but nothing to support it.

Typical conspiracy theorist....long on talk, short on facts.