No I'm from the other site. Did you not read my opQuote from: Vauxhall on September 19, 2014, 06:53:48 PMQuote from: Pythagoras on September 19, 2014, 06:53:05 PMAs usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth sociotySo you're an alt. Good to know. Explains a lot lol
Quote from: Pythagoras on September 19, 2014, 06:53:05 PMAs usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth sociotySo you're an alt. Good to know.
As usual all I get are one liners deflectory questions from the flat earth socioty
So, the camera crew were the first people on the moon?
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.
Hi Pythagoras. I have to type that I am with the skeptics here. As far as I can see, you have provided ABSOLUTE PROOF that the moon landing could have been faked easily. How can a CGI reconstruction prove anything? If we accept your argument, it shows at best that the lighting of the astronaut is not inconsistent with the possibility that this photo was taken on the putative moon. I for one do not rely on the conjecture that the lighting of the astronaut is impossible to have the view that the apollo missions are fraudulent. The extraordinary claim that the Apollo missions are as they are painted requires extraordinary proof. All the salient original records, blueprints, films, video records and documents have been "lost" so I guess that's that.
Hi Gulliver, most amusing... the space agencies are totally independent.. very droll
Kettering Grammar SchoolA group at Kettering Grammar School, using simple radio equipment, monitored Soviet and U.S. spacecraft and calculated their orbits. In 1972 a member of the group tracked Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon.
Hi again Gulliver,what evidence remains of this tracking? Is it more than the text in the wikipedian entry? What happened to the hours and hours and hours of the transmissions from these missions? What happened to the blueprints of the "spacecraft".I shall repeat ad nauseum, "extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence".
...these drawings are not blueprints....
...How did they even open the door of the lunar lander inwards when the air pressure inside the module would have made such a feat practically impossible?...
...Figure 1-39 is a cartoon of the deployment sequence. Section 1.9.3 of the document contains a complete description of the deployment. See, also, a set of Grumman LRV Deployment Cartoons.]
...http://www.moonlandinghoax.org/25.html"Plans for the Lunar Module and Lunar Rover have been destroyed and no longer exist."Much paperwork relating to the Lunar Module and Rover has been discarded, however this is to be expected. No company is going to keep in storage millions of documents for an obsolete project that has no chance of being resurrected. But it is not true to say the documents no longer exist. The National Archives microfilmed everything they thought was historically significant and those films are currently in storage. It is not uncommon for space enthusiasts and modelers to find many obscure facts and details about the LM, Rover, and other Apollo hardware from this archive.A complete set of blueprints of the world's first Particle Accelerator don't survive to this day nor does the very first aircraft, HMS Victory or even the Titanic. Does it mean that they didn't exist or were not built? It's another ridiculous claim.[A film clip (8.6Mb) shows Charlie Duke and Bob Parker participating in a shirtsleeve demonstration of Rover deployment. Digitization by Gary Neff.][Don McMillan has provided an animation ( 0.7 Mb ) of his Virtual Rover unfolding during deployment. A second animation shows the hinges in action.]
Quote from: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 06:26:52 AM...these drawings are not blueprints....Yes, they are.
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Quote from: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 07:16:48 AMQuote from: anounceofsaltperday on September 20, 2014, 06:26:52 AM...these drawings are not blueprints....Yes, they are.Are you saying NASA is wrong about them not being blueprints? If so, could you please present evidence to the fact that, contrary to NASA's description, they are blueprints?
A design plan or other technical drawing.
While I commend you for actually looking up a term before (re-)using it (an improvement from your previous failings - now you just need to make sure you do this before you first use a term, and be just a little bit more thorough), a dictionary definition isn't the be-all and end-all of language you're trying to portray it as. While the term can be used in an informal context to refer to virtually any technical drawing, it's important to keep the context of this conversation in mind.
And since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.
Quote from: Gulliver on September 20, 2014, 09:27:54 AMAnd since, as anounce so clearly documented, the US has many, many documents in storage, and since the question is whether supporting documentation exists, the use of the connotation in the definition quoted clearly applies. And of course, I renew my thanks to anounce for documenting this so well.Entirely irrelevant, but I can see why you're struggling to come up with a response. Seriously though, good job, you're almost ready to start using the English language. A few more interventions and maybe you'll stop screwing up.