|
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 ...
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. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"John Smith" wrote in message ... 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 ... Nope, I simply don't buy his bull**** without proof, just as I wouldn't buy yours. If you throw something out there, then you need to be able to back it up with some support if called on it. If you can't then expect to be treated in the manner your deserve. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Hand cranked Calculator, you said?
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...ide+Calculator http://www.ddaymuseum.org When World War Two was over, America sent some big machines to Germany/Europe.The machines were used for grinding up that rubble, the ground up rubble was mixed into new concrete/rebuilding. I have a Curta hand crank Calculator.I bought it for $88.00 at an Indian (India) store in Saigon,Vietnam in 1964. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 19.10.2011 10:42, schrieb Scout:
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. OK. You seem to insist on something more profound ;-(. As I said, that needs some sort of work. So I relocate from sofa to desktop and try to figure that out. But - please - a few days are necessary, what is certainly possible ? TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Sofa to desktop? Doggy's couch (sofa) is my WebTV comfort zone.
cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...es+Saved+D-Day
See that hand cranked Tides Calculator Machine? Some American G.Is drowned when they landed, stepped into the water, because they were carrying so much weight in their backpacks. The old Higgins Boat factory, part of the D-Day Museum in New Orleans sits on the site of that old Boat Factory. cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... 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? Because that's all they ever amount to....a theory....lacking any actual support or evidence. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Army's new weapon, the Switchblade.
http://www.stevequayle.com/index1.html Lets me check a couple of new news updates now.I better hurry, ergo couch (sofa) buddy doggy is fixin to cut the light. Doggy, you wants a snickerdoodle? ///Cookie? yeah! WOO WOO WOOF!/// cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 20.10.2011 05:08, schrieb Scout:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... 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? Because that's all they ever amount to....a theory....lacking any actual support or evidence. I usually do not use the term 'conspiracy'. Conspiracy is a crime in anglo-saxon law, where two or more people conspire, to harm somebody by illegal means. This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Don't know, if that's true or not, but I have seen a book about it, entitled 'Forbidden to shower naked' (Actually in German 'Nacktduschen streng Verboten'). http://www.buecher.de/shop/recht/nac...d_id/24889734/ I cannot really imagine, it might be a crime to be naked in the bathroom. Conspiracy is making the preparation more a crime than actually committing it. This is extremely strange, in my eyes. But maybe 'crime' is enough and hidden means plus involvement of government or other officials. 'Theory' is the other misnomer, because theory means a hypothesis, that had not been proven wrong. It is actually the best you could get, according to the scientific method. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 05:08, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... 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? Because that's all they ever amount to....a theory....lacking any actual support or evidence. I usually do not use the term 'conspiracy'. I acknowledge your desire and attempt to change the subject. I can only wonder why you don't wish to talk about the 'theory' aspect of it. Perhaps because it hits too close to home? Conspiracy is a crime in anglo-saxon law, where two or more people conspire, to harm somebody by illegal means. I acknowledge your ignorance of the English language as well, since a conspiracy does NOT have to be a crime. This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. Let's just acknowledge you're bat **** crazy. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 20.10.2011 06:56, schrieb Scout:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 05:08, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... 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? Because that's all they ever amount to....a theory....lacking any actual support or evidence. I usually do not use the term 'conspiracy'. I acknowledge your desire and attempt to change the subject. I can only wonder why you don't wish to talk about the 'theory' aspect of it. Perhaps because it hits too close to home? Conspiracy is a crime in anglo-saxon law, where two or more people conspire, to harm somebody by illegal means. I acknowledge your ignorance of the English language as well, since a conspiracy does NOT have to be a crime. This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. What you call 'conspiracy' is in German 'Verschwörung'. This term comes from 'Schwur', what is 'oath' in English. The theory (actually the correct term would be 'hypothesis') is, that there are groups - connected around the globe - through a system of oath and hidden connections. Actually it is a known fact, that such systems do exist. These are (predominantly) masons, jesuits and mobsters. Also the SS of the Nazis used such means. But many other groups have oath, even if not hidden. Only the SS had the habit to kill those, that would not follow the oath, while e.g. the boy scouts don't. Now Kennedy addresses in his speech, that these conspiracies would exist as wast international system (shortly before he got killed). So the idea itself has some merits. Only it is very hard to prove, since the system is hidden and whistle-blowers get killed. Actually I wouldn't think, that the jesuits would kill somebody, that wants to leave, what leaves Nazis and mobsters as possible perpetrators. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 06:56, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 05:08, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Conspiracy is a crime in anglo-saxon law, where two or more people conspire, to harm somebody by illegal means. I acknowledge your ignorance of the English language as well, since a conspiracy does NOT have to be a crime. This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. What you call 'conspiracy' is in German 'Verschwörung'. This term comes from 'Schwur', what is 'oath' in English. The theory (actually the correct term would be 'hypothesis') is, that there are groups - connected around the globe - through a system of oath and hidden connections. Actually it is a known fact, that such systems do exist. These are (predominantly) masons, jesuits and mobsters. Also the SS of the Nazis used such means. But many other groups have oath, even if not hidden. Only the SS had the habit to kill those, that would not follow the oath, while e.g. the boy scouts don't. Now Kennedy addresses in his speech, that these conspiracies would exist as wast international system (shortly before he got killed). So the idea itself has some merits. Only it is very hard to prove, since the system is hidden and whistle-blowers get killed. Actually I wouldn't think, that the jesuits would kill somebody, that wants to leave, what leaves Nazis and mobsters as possible perpetrators. You forget the Muslims They too have a precept in the Koran to kill those who would leave the "faith" |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 20.10.2011 15:41, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
Actually it is a known fact, that such systems do exist. These are (predominantly) masons, jesuits and mobsters. Also the SS of the Nazis used such means. But many other groups have oath, even if not hidden. Only the SS had the habit to kill those, that would not follow the oath, while e.g. the boy scouts don't. Now Kennedy addresses in his speech, that these conspiracies would exist as wast international system (shortly before he got killed). So the idea itself has some merits. Only it is very hard to prove, since the system is hidden and whistle-blowers get killed. Actually I wouldn't think, that the jesuits would kill somebody, that wants to leave, what leaves Nazis and mobsters as possible perpetrators. You forget the Muslims They too have a precept in the Koran to kill those who would leave the "faith" Where have got that from? Do Muslims have an oath? I think, 'faith' is something you have, hence could - maybe - give it up or loose it, but cannot leave. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 19, 1:44*am, "Scout"
wrote: "John Smith" wrote in message ... 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 .... Nope, I simply don't buy his bull**** without proof, just as I wouldn't buy yours. - If you throw something out there, - then you need to be able to back it up - with some support if called on it. - - If you can't then expect to be treated - in the manner your deserve. Says Who ? My Assertion... Can Out Assert Your Assertion ! -and that's proof enough [.] |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 06:56, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 20.10.2011 05:08, schrieb Scout: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... 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? Because that's all they ever amount to....a theory....lacking any actual support or evidence. I usually do not use the term 'conspiracy'. I acknowledge your desire and attempt to change the subject. I can only wonder why you don't wish to talk about the 'theory' aspect of it. Perhaps because it hits too close to home? Conspiracy is a crime in anglo-saxon law, where two or more people conspire, to harm somebody by illegal means. I acknowledge your ignorance of the English language as well, since a conspiracy does NOT have to be a crime. This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 21.10.2011 03:08, schrieb Scout:
This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. 'Conspiracy' is a legal term in anglo-saxon law. The German StGB (Strafgesetzbuch ~ 'book about law of punishment') has no such rule, because what is punished is what you do and not intentions. A promise (much less an oath) given to do something illegal is void and worthless according to BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ~ civil law book). So an oath given to conspirators is worthless, hence cannot be prosecuted. It is just hearsay or 'thought-crime'. Non of such things are subject to prosecution in German law. But this does not mean, that conspiracies are not possible in Germany. The thing itself is of course a criminal offence. If a group of people does illegal things, where any part of the doings is not illegal, only the outcome is harmful, than they commit a collective crime. These crimes occur and are subject to prosecution, only the terms are different. We would speak of building (or supporting) of a criminal group (Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung) or assisting in a crime (Begünstigung) - or various other paragraphs. Even planning could be a crime, but that is also an activity. My impression about 'strange American laws' is, they are useless leftovers and nobody ever cared to sort them out. Some of these laws are so extremely strange, that nobody could possibly mean them seriously. But its bad to keep such things, because the clearness about whats allowed and what not, gets lost. Same in civil laws in America. Civil law is the set of regulations, that formulate the rights of citizens against other citizens (what we call BGB). That are things like how a contract should look like or what could be demanded or not. These regulations are very important, but do not really exist in the US. You have a different (strange) system of using former decisions of courts as 'quasi-law'. That is a very impractical form of legislation and produces immense costs and generates a lot of uncertainty. An even more severe fault of the American legal system is, in my eyes, that criminal and civil laws should be the same across the nation, hence the US federal government should provide usable laws for all of the country and not every single state. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 20, 10:00*pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 21.10.2011 03:08, schrieb Scout: This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. 'Conspiracy' is a legal term in anglo-saxon law. The German StGB (Strafgesetzbuch ~ 'book about law of punishment') has no such rule, because what is punished is what you do and not intentions. A promise (much less an oath) given to do something illegal is void and worthless according to BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ~ civil law book). So an oath given to conspirators is worthless, hence cannot be prosecuted. It is just hearsay or 'thought-crime'. Non of such things are subject to prosecution in German law. But this does not mean, that conspiracies are not possible in Germany. The thing itself is of course a criminal offence. If a group of people does illegal things, where any part of the doings is not illegal, only the outcome is harmful, than they commit a collective crime. These crimes occur and are subject to prosecution, only the terms are different. We would speak of building (or supporting) of a criminal group (Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung) or assisting in a crime (Begünstigung) - or various other paragraphs. Even planning could be a crime, but that is also an activity. My impression about 'strange American laws' is, they are useless leftovers and nobody ever cared to sort them out. Some of these laws are so extremely strange, that nobody could possibly mean them seriously. But its bad to keep such things, because the clearness about whats allowed and what not, gets lost. Same in civil laws in America. Civil law *is the set of regulations, that formulate the rights of citizens against other citizens (what we call BGB). That are things like how a contract should look like or what could be demanded or not. These regulations are very important, but do not really exist in the US. You have a different (strange) system of using former decisions of courts as 'quasi-law'. That is a very impractical form of legislation and produces immense costs and generates a lot of uncertainty. An even more severe fault of the American legal system is, in my eyes, that criminal and civil laws should be the same across the nation, hence the US federal government should provide usable laws for all of the country and not every single state. TH Gee "TH" in your 40+ Posts to this one thread you have dispelled my prior high regard for Germany; and my misconceptions about the German People being well educated, smart and intelligent. who'da thunk ~ RHF |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 21.10.2011 03:08, schrieb Scout: This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. 'Conspiracy' is a legal term in anglo-saxon law. The German StGB snip It's NOT the ONLY meaning of the word Cherry-picking the meaning to be able to spew more bull**** is just boring and stupid GO get yourself a better dictionary and smarten up |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"RHF" wrote in message ... On Oct 20, 10:00 pm, Thomas Heger wrote: Am 21.10.2011 03:08, schrieb Scout: This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. 'Conspiracy' is a legal term in anglo-saxon law. The German StGB (Strafgesetzbuch ~ 'book about law of punishment') has no such rule, because what is punished is what you do and not intentions. A promise (much less an oath) given to do something illegal is void and worthless according to BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ~ civil law book). So an oath given to conspirators is worthless, hence cannot be prosecuted. It is just hearsay or 'thought-crime'. Non of such things are subject to prosecution in German law. But this does not mean, that conspiracies are not possible in Germany. The thing itself is of course a criminal offence. If a group of people does illegal things, where any part of the doings is not illegal, only the outcome is harmful, than they commit a collective crime. These crimes occur and are subject to prosecution, only the terms are different. We would speak of building (or supporting) of a criminal group (Bildung einer kriminellen Vereinigung) or assisting in a crime (Begünstigung) - or various other paragraphs. Even planning could be a crime, but that is also an activity. My impression about 'strange American laws' is, they are useless leftovers and nobody ever cared to sort them out. Some of these laws are so extremely strange, that nobody could possibly mean them seriously. But its bad to keep such things, because the clearness about whats allowed and what not, gets lost. Same in civil laws in America. Civil law is the set of regulations, that formulate the rights of citizens against other citizens (what we call BGB). That are things like how a contract should look like or what could be demanded or not. These regulations are very important, but do not really exist in the US. You have a different (strange) system of using former decisions of courts as 'quasi-law'. That is a very impractical form of legislation and produces immense costs and generates a lot of uncertainty. An even more severe fault of the American legal system is, in my eyes, that criminal and civil laws should be the same across the nation, hence the US federal government should provide usable laws for all of the country and not every single state. TH Gee "TH" in your 40+ Posts to this one thread you have dispelled my prior high regard for Germany; and my misconceptions about the German People being well educated, smart and intelligent. who'da thunk ~ RHF . The term "pompous blowhard" comes to mind, every time I look at one of his posts. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 21.10.2011 03:08, schrieb Scout: This does not require 'hidden means' or secrecy. It just requires more than one person. 'Conspiracy' is among these extremely strange laws, you have in America. Then I take it you're not American, and that you think that a conspiracy can only occur under American law. No, I don't say so and I don't mean it. Apparently you do since you seems to fill that one can only conspire under the "extremely strange laws" in America. Again you simply show that you're bat **** crazy. 'Conspiracy' is a legal term in anglo-saxon law. It also means a lot of other things. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 21.10.2011 15:46, schrieb SaPeIsMa: But there are more similarities: e.g. Jews and Muslims have circumcision (what is a rare fact otherwise), do not eat pig and practise (or practised) stoning (what is an extremely cruel and brutal punishment). OH wow A bunch of desert people have the same health practices, which therefore makes their religions similar. No, I mean they are the same people. The religions are different of course. But since they are the same people, these religious originate from the same roots. A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. Some thousand years ago, there was a religion in the area, were is now Jerusalem. This religion was ancestor to all following religions from the same roots. From this believe these religions have developed into their current different forms. The roots have to be the same, since the religions are in parts identical: use the same metaphors, stories, characters and even locations. Circumcision is only one example or cultural identity of the people addressed. It is - of course - not a 'healthy habit', but a (pseudo-) religious practise. It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. Christianity and Judaism share in total the bibles first part. Christianity is 'modified Judaism' (through prophet) as Islam is. Since 'modification' is a heretic crime, worth death penalty, these religions hate each other since ancient times (for no apparent reason). DOH ! again Jesus was NO "prophet" He was, according to the Christians, the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and also the Son of God Islam says Jesus was a prophet. Jews do not mention him (since Judaism was created earlier). Islam was created later, hence could mention him. But the bible is ABOUT Jesus, not written by him. A prophet is someone, who manages to write things down and tell that to the people. Apparently Mohamed was a prophet (but I have only limited knowledge about Islam) Muhammad, on the other hand was no prophet at all, he was a minor war lord who wanted to extend his power by upgrading himself to a religious prophet I have no idea, from what sources prophets are chosen, but 'little warlord' would not exclude him from such a position. When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. The COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of Christianity.. Actually the Christians killed a few people, too. They really love to kill: Muslims, Indians, Africans, each other ... Greetings Thomas |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 21.10.2011 15:46, schrieb SaPeIsMa: But there are more similarities: e.g. Jews and Muslims have circumcision (what is a rare fact otherwise), do not eat pig and practise (or practised) stoning (what is an extremely cruel and brutal punishment). OH wow A bunch of desert people have the same health practices, which therefore makes their religions similar. No, I mean they are the same people. The religions are different of course. But since they are the same people, these religious originate from the same roots. That's about as meaningful as claiming that fruits and vegetables are from the same soil An Oxymoron A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. Some thousand years ago, there was a religion in the area, were is now Jerusalem. This religion was ancestor to all following religions from the same roots. From this believe these religions have developed into their current different forms. The roots have to be the same, since the religions are in parts identical: use the same metaphors, stories, characters and even locations. You write a lot, but the useful content is really in short supply. Circumcision is only one example or cultural identity of the people addressed. It is - of course - not a 'healthy habit', but a (pseudo-) religious practise. Actually circumcision IS a healthy habit. In an area where water is in short supply, it's far easier to avoid infection of the penile glans by removing the foreskin. It's also noted that removing the foreskin also reduces the incidence of transmitted diseases as well It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. LOL Tell us about the perfection of the appendix, which an kill you if it gets inflamed and the ONLY way to avoid being killed by an inflamed appendix is to excise it. Christianity and Judaism share in total the bibles first part. Christianity is 'modified Judaism' (through prophet) as Islam is. Since 'modification' is a heretic crime, worth death penalty, these religions hate each other since ancient times (for no apparent reason). DOH ! again Jesus was NO "prophet" He was, according to the Christians, the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and also the Son of God Islam says Jesus was a prophet. Jews do not mention him (since Judaism was created earlier). Islam was created later, hence could mention him. But the bible is ABOUT Jesus, not written by him. A prophet is someone, who manages to write things down and tell that to the people. Apparently Mohamed was a prophet (but I have only limited knowledge about Islam) Muhammad, on the other hand was no prophet at all, he was a minor war lord who wanted to extend his power by upgrading himself to a religious prophet I have no idea, from what sources prophets are chosen, but 'little warlord' would not exclude him from such a position. When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. The COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of Christianity.. Actually the Christians killed a few people, too. They really love to kill: Muslims, Indians, Africans, each other ... YOU need to read up on history and do a body count Compared to the Muslims, the only group that has killed a larger number of people are the Communists. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Ahhhhhh, Germany.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=315036 Brussels,Beljikistan is where they plan the future of Europa.Their future isn't worth a Sheet! The Euro is Falling agains't other currencies, and that is a Good thang. Say cuzz, did you ever hear the cry of the Doo Doo Bird? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, SHEET!!! cuhulin |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa: ... A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y ??? ... Actually circumcision IS a healthy habit. In an area where water is in short supply, it's far easier to avoid infection of the penile glans by removing the foreskin. It's also noted that removing the foreskin also reduces the incidence of transmitted diseases as well It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. LOL Tell us about the perfection of the appendix, which an kill you if it gets inflamed and the ONLY way to avoid being killed by an inflamed appendix is to excise it. Well, I think, this practise is intentional altering of the human body. I do not really like it. Its like piercing or tattoos, what I don't like neither. But people may do what they like. Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. ... When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. The COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of Christianity.. Actually the Christians killed a few people, too. They really love to kill: Muslims, Indians, Africans, each other ... YOU need to read up on history and do a body count Compared to the Muslims, the only group that has killed a larger number of people are the Communists. Communism is a bad thing in my eyes and closely related to fascism. Personally I think, that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Both - btw- have roots in London. Marx and Engels lived there. The Brits supported the communists and are themself responsible for a few massacres. But I even think, the Brits supported the Nazis, too. Hitler could possibly be a kind of 'British spy'. The entire story of the so called third Reich is more than dubious. Most likely its all fake and crime. But I cannot tell anything for sure. I usually follow ideas and inspirations, then research, read, look at old pictures or films. Usually I try to find inconsistencies. One of these was a 'storm belt' over the wrong shoulder - on a person that opens the door of a car for Hitler. This means, the film is reverted and left and right exchanged. Possibly to hide the fact, that the car was designed to drive on the left side. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y ??? .. Yes really Haven't you studied history ? Actually circumcision IS a healthy habit. In an area where water is in short supply, it's far easier to avoid infection of the penile glans by removing the foreskin. It's also noted that removing the foreskin also reduces the incidence of transmitted diseases as well It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. LOL Tell us about the perfection of the appendix, which an kill you if it gets inflamed and the ONLY way to avoid being killed by an inflamed appendix is to excise it. Well, I think, this practise is intentional altering of the human body. I do not really like it. Its like piercing or tattoos, what I don't like neither. NOPE Piercing and tats provide NO health benefits' like circumcision But people may do what they like. Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. That is a question that has been asked, Too bad that there is very little evidence to suppor the notion that it causes lifelong trauma.. .. When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. The COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of Christianity.. Actually the Christians killed a few people, too. They really love to kill: Muslims, Indians, Africans, each other ... YOU need to read up on history and do a body count Compared to the Muslims, the only group that has killed a larger number of people are the Communists. Communism is a bad thing in my eyes and closely related to fascism. Personally I think, that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin. Both - btw- have roots in London. Marx and Engels lived there. The Brits supported the communists and are themself responsible for a few massacres. But I even think, the Brits supported the Nazis, too. Hitler could possibly be a kind of 'British spy'. The entire story of the so called third Reich is more than dubious. Most likely its all fake and crime. But I cannot tell anything for sure. I usually follow ideas and inspirations, then research, read, look at old pictures or films. Usually I try to find inconsistencies. One of these was a 'storm belt' over the wrong shoulder - on a person that opens the door of a car for Hitler. This means, the film is reverted and left and right exchanged. Possibly to hide the fact, that the car was designed to drive on the left side. LOL You are a conspiracy nit |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Oct 27, 8:42*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y *??? .. Actually circumcision IS a healthy habit. In an area where water is in short supply, it's far easier to avoid infection of the penile glans by removing the foreskin. It's also noted that removing the foreskin also reduces the incidence of transmitted diseases as well It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. LOL Tell us about the perfection of the appendix, which an kill you if it gets inflamed and the ONLY way to avoid being killed by an inflamed appendix is to excise it. Well, I think, this practise is intentional altering of the human body. I do not really like it. Its like piercing or tattoos, what I don't like neither. But people may do what they like. Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. .. When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:49:43 -0500, "SaPeIsMa"
wrote: NOPE Piercing and tats provide NO health benefits' like circumcision What are the measured health benefits of circumcision in any first world country? (Some study which compared health of populations). -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/27/2011 4:35 PM, Howard Brazee wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 15:49:43 -0500, wrote: NOPE Piercing and tats provide NO health benefits' like circumcision What are the measured health benefits of circumcision in any first world country? (Some study which compared health of populations). For some strange reason, I am tempted to say I have never seen anyone improve on natures/Gods' design with a knife ... I should doubt that there is a single exception to this ... However, that said, this should be no argument or reason to deny the practice of relatively "safe" procedures such as ear piercings, tattoos, circumcisions, etc. to those so desiring. Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
Am 27.10.2011 22:49, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
"Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa: ... The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y ??? .. Yes really Haven't you studied history ? No, engineering. But I forgot the 'irony smiley' (don't know, how that looks like) ... Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. That is a question that has been asked, Too bad that there is very little evidence to suppor the notion that it causes lifelong trauma.. The subject drifts a little too far away from the subject of this thread. (And somehow it is not my business, just my feeling tells me, that I wouldn't do that.) ... The Brits supported the communists and are themself responsible for a few massacres. But I even think, the Brits supported the Nazis, too. Hitler could possibly be a kind of 'British spy'. The entire story of the so called third Reich is more than dubious. Most likely its all fake and crime. But I cannot tell anything for sure. I usually follow ideas and inspirations, then research, read, look at old pictures or films. Usually I try to find inconsistencies. One of these was a 'storm belt' over the wrong shoulder - on a person that opens the door of a car for Hitler. This means, the film is reverted and left and right exchanged. Possibly to hide the fact, that the car was designed to drive on the left side. LOL You are a conspiracy nit Thats why I write on alt.conspiracy ;-) I like this thread, because the collection of other boards that participate is amazing. Usually I wouldn't write about golf, shortwave or guns. TH |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/27/2011 2:09 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:42 am, Thomas wrote: Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 00:48, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. A more recent example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both have the same roots in Christianity, but they fought bitter and long lasting wars. Germany was almost completely destroyed and depopulated through this, even if they were all Christians. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y ??? .. Actually circumcision IS a healthy habit. In an area where water is in short supply, it's far easier to avoid infection of the penile glans by removing the foreskin. It's also noted that removing the foreskin also reduces the incidence of transmitted diseases as well It's a bad thing - btw - because it changes the appearance of the human body, that is intended to be as perfect as it is and not as humans want it to be. LOL Tell us about the perfection of the appendix, which an kill you if it gets inflamed and the ONLY way to avoid being killed by an inflamed appendix is to excise it. Well, I think, this practise is intentional altering of the human body. I do not really like it. Its like piercing or tattoos, what I don't like neither. But people may do what they like. Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. .. When the Christians rejected him, he started his own cult, a big part of which is to kill just about anyone both inside and outside of his cult. The COMPLETE ANTITHESIS of Christianity.. Actually the Christians killed a few people, too. They really love to kill: Muslims, Indians, Africans, each other ... YOU need to read up on history and do a body count Compared to the Muslims, the only group that has killed a larger number of people are the Communists. Communism is a bad thing in my eyes and closely related to fascism. - Personally I think, that fascism and - communism are two sides of the same coin. International Socialism {Communism} and National Socialism : Both have their roots in 'Socialism'. . Both - btw- have roots in London. Marx and Engels lived there. The Brits supported the communists and are themself responsible for a few massacres. But I even think, the Brits supported the Nazis, too. Hitler could possibly be a kind of 'British spy'. The entire story of the so called third Reich is more than dubious. Most likely its all fake and crime. But I cannot tell anything for sure. I usually follow ideas and inspirations, then research, read, look at old pictures or films. Usually I try to find inconsistencies. One of these was a 'storm belt' over the wrong shoulder - on a person that opens the door of a car for Hitler. This means, the film is reverted and left and right exchanged. Possibly to hide the fact, that the car was designed to drive on the left side. TH I tend to see true socialism as reflecting the way of the American Indians tribes model(s.) The tribe shares in the work of the tribe, the problems of the tribe, the solutions of the tribe, the assets of the tribe, etc. They are banded together for the betterment of each and every member and the tribe as a whole. While that may, or may not, mean each and everyone has "exactly the same" as any other, it does imply they have equal rights and that a minimum of help and support is granted to any and every single member of that tribe ... Indeed, without socialism, the human race could never have progressed to the point of where we stand today ... communism is certainly a vastly differing system, as is capitalism. No matter what title you give to an elite group stealing all the others creator granted resources and then using these resources to enslave others, it only looks criminal from a distance. Indeed, communists often accuse capitalists of the same crimes which capitalists are accusing communists of ... stealing others resources to enrich themselves ... and those accusations being made on the rich elite group(s) which tend to have dominance over the other members of the society. The best, and perhaps the only way to be able to picture this, is from the 3rd person perspective. Or, say you are an alien arriving in a spaceship and meet bill gates standing beside a minimum wage earner, or worse, a starving child, and asking yourself, "Why is that a proper form and model for a society to follow?" Regards, JS |
Small gun, the serious protection you need ...
On 10/27/2011 5:44 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 27.10.2011 22:49, schrieb SaPeIsMa: "Thomas Heger" wrote in message ... Am 26.10.2011 15:37, schrieb SaPeIsMa: .. The Catholic-Protestant wars were primarily power, politics and geo-political control Religion was just the justification. R E A L L Y ??? .. Yes really Haven't you studied history ? No, engineering. But I forgot the 'irony smiley' (don't know, how that looks like) .. Another question is, what you do with your kids, since these cannot defend themselves. Early childhood traumata of any sort are generally unhealthy. That is a question that has been asked, Too bad that there is very little evidence to suppor the notion that it causes lifelong trauma.. The subject drifts a little too far away from the subject of this thread. (And somehow it is not my business, just my feeling tells me, that I wouldn't do that.) .. The Brits supported the communists and are themself responsible for a few massacres. But I even think, the Brits supported the Nazis, too. Hitler could possibly be a kind of 'British spy'. The entire story of the so called third Reich is more than dubious. Most likely its all fake and crime. But I cannot tell anything for sure. I usually follow ideas and inspirations, then research, read, look at old pictures or films. Usually I try to find inconsistencies. One of these was a 'storm belt' over the wrong shoulder - on a person that opens the door of a car for Hitler. This means, the film is reverted and left and right exchanged. Possibly to hide the fact, that the car was designed to drive on the left side. LOL You are a conspiracy nit Thats why I write on alt.conspiracy ;-) I like this thread, because the collection of other boards that participate is amazing. Usually I wouldn't write about golf, shortwave or guns. TH LOL! I like to include conspiracy because everything we humans do is a conspiracy, and usually we attempt to involve more than just ourselves in in. Whether we are conspiring to change another point of view, or conspiring to have others examine our logic and we theirs, etc. And, this, all, in contrast to the criminal conspiracies of criminal pubic servants in public servant offices, whose duty is to carry out the will of the majority while making sure those duties do not injure a single person, group, or groups -- i.e., a minority. And, fulfill their duties in their oaths to uphold the Constitution and guarantee the government of the people, by the people and for the people. From the time me and the wife get up, until we lay our heads down at night, we are engaged in an open conspiracy to improve and enrich, not only our own situation, but our family, friends and communities ... our only enemies are those working against our endeavors -- unfortunately, there are many, and their numbers seem to grow these days ... Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com