Thomas Heger wrote in
:

Am 15.10.2011 02:05, schrieb Scout:


"RD Sandman" wrote in message
...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11
PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the
Americans got ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest
in the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on
that subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the
internet, watching films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies
within the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example.
(Only one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from
the landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps,
while the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot
take photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can
easily "descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after
undocking to go to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting
craft/station to pass under you (lower orbit being faster) until it
clears the area, and then when you come up on the point to begin
your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter what you do at
that point the other craft is only going to move further away from
you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting
craft and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching
up to you as you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit
because your angle was slightly off....you could possibly even run
into each other. Not a good thing. Nor do you want to wait forever
for the gap to open up enough as your time in space is strictly
limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it pass under you
and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee, while
you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof*
the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...-discovery-pro
mpt s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot
of the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of
Planet Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the
Space Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission
to the ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from
the shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a
fraud, or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you
see as photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your
ignorance of the mechanics of space flight?



Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is
purely looking for some conspiracy to believe in.

Actually you can be a 'truther' and live outside the USA.

I did some sort of 'research' on 9-11, too. Actually I have an own
'theory', that circles around flight 93.
There seems to be a plot. This is the picture - or story- that was
intended, but not achieved. Actually Mr.Bush messed it up (in my
assumption).

It goes like this:
I call it a 'dance of planes and falling skyscrapers'.
The original plot was, that north tower gets hit, south tower gets
hit, pentagon gets hit.
South tower falls down, flight 93 hits building 7, north tower falls
down, building 7 falls down. (South tower had to fall first, because
building 7 is behind it).

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

Instead the flight was delayed and Mr. President so perplexed, that he
had to think about a solution very hard (and for several minutes).
Than he gave order to shoot down the plane, what was promptly done.
Flight 93 was apparently approaching Indean Lake Airpark, but didn't.
make it there and fell in parts into the Indean Lake.

Actually, no, it didn't.

Later on the WTC 7 fell without a hit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That and showing he has absolutely NO capacity for research,
investigation or critical thought.


I bet I can give him something that will really blow his mind.

In orbit you go faster to slow down, and slow down to go faster.

The decline from orbit is a difficult subject, too. Imagine a space
capsule in Moon orbit. There is no air. To land and to stop the craft
in horizontal movement, you need to fire the engine in reverse thrust
(against flight direction). This is not seen on any of the films or
pictures. And it is - of course - difficult and fuel consuming.

The opposite is even more difficult and that is to restart and making
the rendezvous with the orbiter. This is next to impossible, because
there is no assistance from the ground, helping to correct the flight
path (nobody there, on moon surface). And completely impossible is, to
store the needed fuel in a single craft. (No gas station there,
neither).

TH





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

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