Reply With Quote
Article: MYTHBUSTERS EXPOSED: HOW A SPECIAL EFFECTS CREW OPENED THE MOST IMPORTANT NEW FRONT IN THE BATTLE FOR SCIENCE LITERACY
OMG are you serious? That guy is the one thats DEAD WRONG.
try to stay with me Mouse...
The whole myth is about can a plane take off if it was on a never ending conveyor belt..... It's not about getting actual lift from the engine's propellers wind output.
The wheels are not what propel the plane forward, the propeller does. The conveyor belt has no effect on the propellers, therefore, no matter how fast you pull the conveyor belt, the plane is still going to move forward (unless the tires burst from sheer speed).
As far as the lift part of the myth, the second the plane started to move forward, you know it was eventually going to lift off, but a conveyor belt that long just wasn't conceivable.
Its simple physics. How anyone doesn't get it is beyond me.
As far as the speed camera. The myth was busted because its not reasonable to expect someone to be able to reach those speeds on a city street.
Did you also notice that your little precious links to try and help you save face cite Mythbusters as probably the most definitive source for answers to these myths? Maybe they do get a few wrong once in a while, they are still the go to guys.
Keep reaching though Mouse, anything to keep your fragile psyche from fracturing into a million pieces.
Last edited by phyzik; 11-13-2009 at 05:26 PM.
Article: MYTHBUSTERS EXPOSED: HOW A SPECIAL EFFECTS CREW OPENED THE MOST IMPORTANT NEW FRONT IN THE BATTLE FOR SCIENCE LITERACY
Then go after him. why do you try to kill the messenger?
If your NASA loving ass is so passionate tell me why NASA used 1940's black and white film to record the greatest accomplishment man has ever archived?
We had good quality color film back in 1969, even the astronauts own home footage they took themselves was in color and clear. could it be NASA wanted the old black and white grainy film to help hide there bull moon landing?
I gave up on him. He has some serious issues understanding simple facts.
Translation: I get my ass kicked by mouse on many debates.
This coming from a person who still thinks a few office desks on fires brought down WTC7.
speaking of simple facts how is your Darwin theories holding out in the politics forum?
No, I OWNED you on the topic before, and you were to ignorant to realize it.
No, it was structural damage and heat. I have some sound understandings involving construction materials.
Tell you what.
Take a cube of butter sometime out of the refrigerator and notie that it's hard and firm. That's sort of like steel at any livable temperature. Now let the butter warm up to room temperature. It becomes soft. Steel becomes soft at the temperature of fires. Buildings are built to withstand this loss of structural strength at such temperatures. However, when you break the structure, and then weaken the remaining structure with heat....
Sorry, it wasn't designed for both.
What's funny is I'm usually arguing for the creation, as intelligent design. Not against it. I just find it insane that anyone can believe the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old.
I have also stated I do believe in evolution. Just not as an explanation for us, without the help of design.
Do you even comprehend my viewpoint, or are you still stuck on stupid?
Mouse, your getting desperate.
Do you realise how ing MASSIVE those color camera's where back then? They where moved around on dolleys in the production studios. Here's an example of a portable color video camera in 1975, 6 years after the landing.
Portable camera's of the day where large and carried over the shoulder with a belt pack. I presume it's not exactly easy to do that in one of those suits.
Nevermind the fuel to weight factor. The engineers at Grumen actually got rid of the chairs in the lander just to save on weight. The astronauts flew it while standing up. You want them to bring color video camera's?
Also, That pretty little weight-saving digital camera of yours? the first of that little piece of tech was developed for the Apollo missions. The technology was so new that the CCDs were only black and white.
Last edited by phyzik; 11-13-2009 at 06:55 PM.
Here's a website for you mouse, its a customer I used to support when I worked for Texas.net
http://www.stopcovertwar.com/enter2.html
She too thought the government was following her in black vehicles and believes in all sorts of loopy just like you. Maybe she can help you find the snitch!
It's pointless. No matter what facts you present, Mouse finds away not to believe them.
That's just the camera. The video recording equipment was rather large too.
1967 Sony CV-2000D First Consumer Videocorder
B&W Video Reorder:
There's a color version (CV-5600) for the era, later in the years. Damn thing's more than a foot wide, probably about 18" to 24" and is heavy. I remember seeing these in school:The CV-5100 was the only color model of the series. It never went into production. Only 25 prototype models were produced in about 1967 or 68 for the IRE trade show
You want to talk desperate? You making excuse for NASA not spending money on color cameras? Jesus your really bias you have a relative that lives in Houston?
Did a dust buster save you from getting busted having a live sheep in your bedroom? Do you feel you owe it to NASA to toss their salad 24/7
Wrong!Do you realize how ing MASSIVE those color camera's where back then? They where moved around on dolleys in the production studios. Here's an example of a portable color video camera in 1975, 6 years after the landing.
Portable camera's of the day where large and carried over the shoulder with a belt pack. I presume it's not exactly easy to do that in one of those suits.
You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.
Besides the astronauts had mounted cameras.
put down the lone star beer and take a look.
You remember seeing the van allen radiation belts which prohibits man from going to the moon that is way the Russians didn't?
or do you have selective memory like in your 9/11 debates?
go to 340/905 on the film
Last edited by mouse; 11-13-2009 at 07:47 PM.
whoops! they did have color camera's! I thought you where referiing to video camera's hence why I mentioned CCD's.You want to talk desperate? You making excuse for NASA not spending money on color cameras? Jesus your really bias you have a relative that lives in Houston?
Did a dust buster save you from getting busted having a live sheep in your bedroom? Do you feel you owe it to NASA to toss their salad 24/7
Wrong!
You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.
Besides the astronauts had mounted cameras.
put down the lone star beer and take a look.
Also, with the picture you used, how about that resolution? I doubt color camera's had that kind of resolution. That camera thats mounted on his chest is a still image camera, not a video recorder.
what now?
whoops!
what now?
Thanks for proving my point.
Don't be so gullible those photos are after they came to earth and used photo shop. If they had such good color film why is this what the world saw when they landed?
and how about the cross hairs +s on the film why are they "behind the objects?
hey phyzik since you know so much about NASA why no stars in the films?
Mouse, your impossible to please, It's painfully obvious that no matter what I provide, Wild Cobra has it right.
Im done arguing with you, of course you can go ahead and feel like you won the arguement, which isnt the case. There is plenty of proof that we did, in fact, land on the moon. you just choose to be one of the few conspiracy theorist who refuse to believe anything no matter what facts are presented. There's no arguing with you, you will always have some crazy conspiracy theory item to point towards.
It's enough for me that you are in the minority with like this, therefore I win. no point to argue anymore with a crazy person.
I can see a few stars in some of the pictures I posted btw, for instance, the first image, look to the left, just above the horizon of the moon, there are 2 specs of light, you can make those out because the sun is practically behind them. Also, if you notice, the sun is "up" on the moon, it pretty much drowns out any other light that would be out there. The sky is black because it has no atmosphere. Can you see stars on a bright day on earth? If we had no atmposphere it would be black too... if the sun was up, we wouldnt see them.
as a parting gesture, contemplate this video.
that only happens in a vacuum
Last edited by phyzik; 11-13-2009 at 08:32 PM.
That's beneath you, Mouse.
At least it used to be.
She came out of her coma about ten days ago, BTW.
Are you the Cyrano from PMSA?
You don't have to please me just admit you don't have all the answers
Mouse, your impossible to please,
I could say the same, why should your youtube videos and online links be ok but mine are not?It's painfully obvious that no matter what I provide, Wild Cobra has it right.
I don't have to win I just have to make my point and as an american I have that right, it's only backwoods simple minded rednecks like you and wild cobra that want to take that freedom away from me, I post the obvous, The united States had no choice but to put a man on the moon the nations security depended on it.Im done arguing with you, of course you can go ahead and feel like you won the arguement, which isnt the case.
This nation is known to deceive the public in order to get what they want.
In World War II inflatable tanks were used to deceive the enemy.
http://www.generalpatton.org/D-Day/Patton_Dday.htm
And there is the same amount of proof that shows the complete opposite.There is plenty of proof that we did, in fact, land on the moon
Your wrong there are millions of people everyday who think this nation lied to the world about the Apollo moon landing, why not look at the complete movie of the links I posted before you get on your Niel Armstrong soap box?you just choose to be one of the few conspiracy theorist who refuse to believe anything no matter what facts are presented.
Why must you always use the word crazy when you say conspiracy theory/There's no arguing with you, you will always have some crazy conspiracy theory item to point towards.
I bet your ancestors were the ones telling the wright brothers not to bother building a plane they were crazy.
I suppose your pappy in the 50s thought people who talked about wireless phones and computers were on drugs?
Just because this is to much form your simple mind to absorb don't be so fast to insult others.
Sure what ever you say your the winner go PM Kori and receive anotherIt's enough for me that you are in the minority with like this, therefore I win. no point to argue anymore with a crazy person.under your name.
I don't have to win I know hard headed people like you who supported Bush still think WMDs are still in Iraq that is your choice more power to you Good luck!
Then why did all three astronauts say they didn't see any stars when they did there press conference? How come your not e-mailing NASA with this earth shattering new evidence you have uncovered?I can see a few stars in some of the pictures
Sorry brah but they have special cameras that can take pictures with no light and too much light, its all about how you set the lens, also why didn't the astronauts take a telescope? Man is finally further into space than ever before and he forgets to bring a telescope? who writes this ?I posted btw, for instance, the first image, look to the left, just above the horizon of the moon, there are 2 specs of light, you can make those out because the sun is practically behind them. Also, if you notice, the sun is "up" on the moon, it pretty much drowns out any other light that would be out there. The sky is black because it has no atmosphere. Can you see stars on a bright day on earth? If we had no atmosphere it would be black too... if the sun was up, we wouldnt see them.
The reason they didn't bring one and the reason you don't see stars is because trying to duplicate the the star patterns and formations would have been impossible any mistake could have been spotted by an amature astronomer. You notice they never take the camera and pan around? and they never look up?
I see you get to post videos and look like a sound professional, I post a video and look like a bigfoot conspiracy nut?as a parting gesture, contemplate this video.
that only happens in a vacuum
How come you never answered my question about the dangerous Van Allen radiation belts? Every space walk and experiment in space has been miles below the radiation belts because they can kill you. Why do you think no one since has gone to the moon? Don't you find it odd no man has gone to mars?
This country can't even make a 10 Billion Hubble telescope with a working lens and you think they could fly to the moon on there first try?
http://www.livescience.com/space/090...cope-poll.html
what weed are you smoking? sell me some of that !
Do me a favor I watched your cheesy propaganda film now watch "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
and get back to me.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...8&sa=N&tab=wv#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDeoB...eature=related
The one and only.
Why do I bother?
There was a black and white video camera, a still camera, and I think a 16mm camera sent. The video camera was bulky and able to send images in almost real time. There was about a second delay. The only color images could only be processes after they got back to earth. Kind of hard to send film images by radio in the 60's. Now even the color cameras used were heavier than any state of the art camera because it had to be shielded from the radiation, or else the film would be useless.Wrong!
You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.
If you took the time to do a little research, the 1/8" thick aluminum capsule was just fine to protect them form the short exposure in the belt.You remember seeing the van allen radiation belts which prohibits man from going to the moon that is way the Russians didn't?
or do you have selective memory like in your 9/11 debates?
All these are explained. 3:40 and 9:05 claims are not true. You believe the lying ? The video of this propaganda states something as fact, but doesn't back it up.
Yep. They were film cameras, not video.
Even the video camera used could not be regular video format. They had to project it on a screen to be captured by a NTSC camera for broadcast. Any idea how hard it is to send a minimum 4 MHZ intelligence carrier signal from the moon, with 60's technology? It either had to be sent at a slower tape speed, or sent in low resolution. Color was completely out of the question for the extra bandwidth and signal to noise ratio requirements.
It's called saturation, or "washout."
It is a common thing that happens on the Earth too.
washout?
Dam wild cobra your really reaching for now!
I suppose a rock with a the letter C on it to identify it as Hollywood props is mysteriously missing in another photo? I guess that wash out guy is real busy.
So we can move on I will let you slide on the cross hairs although it's all bull that certain cross hairs are going to be missing in certain areas like a photo just happens to know when to washout as you call it.
The fotos are so perfectly arranged and illuminated that they cannot be made by "moon astronauts" when the astronauts cannot even look through the seeker and the camera shall have been fixed on the chest. Many fotos are simple foto compositions e.g. with missing shadows and are no contribution for a "moon landing".
Explain this.
Fotos with landing feet without dust on it
Foto of the landing foot without dust: AS 11-40-5918.
[But there is much moon dust around the foot].
After a landing with a rocket engine this arrangement of the dust is impossible, because after a big cloud of dust the dust also had to fall on the landing foot.
So, because of the contradictions there is the urgent su ion that the Lunar Module has landed with a crane on the fresh arranged studio soil (Wisnewski, p.162),
[whereas there was forgotten to make preparations for the landing feet with "moon dust"].
When your done explain this,
The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke
Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall do ent a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167).
Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst
-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon
-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).
Let me know if you need more photos. I can't wait to post the ones showing the same exact backgrounds for supposedly separate moon missions.
Your comment shows your ignorance and lack of control when you have your back against the wall in all the debates I kick your ass in.
that so called "lying " as you call her is Anne Tonelson a respected film narrator and has nothing to do with the facts you can't debunk don't get mad at her because your upset you have no other outlet so you try to use another ploy that you and your pat-na Chum Dumper use to kill the messenger so that it will makes the message invalid. It didn't work for Michael Moore and it won't work now.
Hey mouse...
I have a bridge I'll sell you for cheap.
This has been properly. I'm not going to look this one up again.washout?
Dam wild cobra your really reaching for now!
I suppose a rock with a the letter C on it to identify it as Hollywood props is mysteriously missing in another photo? I guess that wash out guy is real busy.
Yes, the bright white washes out the fine black lines. Ever shoot thousands of film shots with a 35mm? Well, I have. This does happen. Ask any professional photographer.
So we can move on I will let you slide on the cross hairs although it's all bull that certain cross hairs are going to be missing in certain areas like a photo just happens to know when to washout as you call it.
All explained in the past. Sorry you don't have the education to understand the reasons.
Sorry, fail again. Dust doesn't fall on the moon like it does on the earth. There is no atmosphere to swirl it around. Every trace of dust was blasted away by the landing rocket, before the LM landed.
Explain this.
Fotos with landing feet without dust on it
Foto of the landing foot without dust: AS 11-40-5918.
[But there is much moon dust around the foot].
After a landing with a rocket engine this arrangement of the dust is impossible, because after a big cloud of dust the dust also had to fall on the landing foot.
So, because of the contradictions there is the urgent su ion that the Lunar Module has landed with a crane on the fresh arranged studio soil (Wisnewski, p.162),
[whereas there was forgotten to make preparations for the landing feet with "moon dust"].
Bull . Shrink-wrapping removes the air. Therefore, no air to burst it.When your done explain this,
The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke
Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall do ent a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167).
Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst
It takes oxygen to bleach something.
Really?
Was it tested in an oven with no atmosphere?
Paper holds up to 451 degrees in our atmosphere With none on the moon, why should such things happen?
Simple. That hill is far away. The shadows of the first several are all the same direction indicating the hill is several more miles away and seen from all the vantage points.
Which hill is it? Why isn't it marked on the map? And... where are the links the video promised?
Funny. I live near the cascade mountains here in Oregon. No matter where I go in the area, if I can see Mt. Hood.. It looks the same! I see all the same features.
Is my Mt. Hood magically moving some how?
Bring on the others if you want to be schooled some more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
