“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”
“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.
Cleared a few metres away, and ending with a uniform ridge? Why so?
The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away.
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?
It's that delicious irony: if we leave you alone you claim victory on the grounds that no one can challenge you, and if we answer you then you claim victory on the grounds that so much attention is suspicious. Please tell us, exactly how much attention is appropriate?
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”
You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.
http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html
Once again I ask you, at what level of the military (and for that matter political) hierarchy did people find out the Cold War was faked? The crews of the nuclear missile submarines? Their captains? The admirals? Because if the President knew it was fake, but we ordinary people didn’t, there must be some level in the hierarchy below which people didn’t know the “truth” and above which people did. And in the case of a promotional hierarchy there will be people who will move from the first group to the second group, yet none of them has stepped forward to reveal this “truth”.
As with faking Apollo, but on a much more massive scale, something is preventing these people from making confessions,
even posthumous confessions. Must be that MONEY! again.
As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine. Examples of errors:
-Senator Vandenburg didn’t turn from an isolationist into an internationalist overnight; his change (as was the case for many Republicans) was gradual over the period 1940 to 1945, given that for example he supported aid to Finland in 1940.
-It’s unlikely Truman supported continued deficit spending after WW2 given that he vetoed two Congress votes for income tax cuts.
-Jacob Schiff didn’t fund the 1917 Communist revolution but the 1905 revolution – the 1917 Communist revolution was largely funded by Imperial Germany.
-Averill Harriman didn’t control Joseph Stalin, but instead did what he could to manage him in order to not act too much against the interests of the Western Allies (such as signing a separate peace agreement with Germany).
-The idea that the USSR could simultaneously have a powerful military and a poor standard of living is not contradictory – the USSR simply spent a much greater proportion of its income on the military than the USA did.
Examples of omissions:
-The article fails to mention that the Soviets had form for expansionist aggression before its entry into World War Two, such as the occupations of eastern Poland (1939), Karelia (1940), the Baltic states (1940) and Bessarabia (1940), so post-war aggression was unsurprising.
-It fails to mention Soviet subversion of post-war governments in eastern Europe in the period 1946-1949, and similar attempts across western Europe, and the funding and/or arming of Communist movements around the world (and concurrently fails to mention the funding and/or arming of anti-Communist movements around the world).
- It fails to explain why a fake Cold War even required American soldiers to actively participate in any conflicts (and fails to mention that Soviet soldiers actively participated in several conflicts, especially in Afghanistan).
-And it fails to explain why Warsaw Pact nations went to extraordinary lengths to stop people from leaving their countries for the West, and why a negligible number of people chose to move from the West to Warsaw Pact countries even though they were free to do so.
And that’s just the points I could be bothered addressing – there were other errors and omissions I could have mentioned.
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"
Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.
All three videos involve the use of CGI, do they? Including the one from Skylab (the astronaut running and somersaulting around the ring) which was filmed in 1973. CGI in 1973? Seriously?
And how do you do CGI of a watch wriggling around the astronaut's wrist? Care to show us examples filmed on Earth?
