11 Feb 06
With the backpacks on, the astronauts needed about 35 " of clearance to squeeze into the LEM. The hatch on the LEM is only 30" wide. Thats tight and impossible given the other connontations.
After getting back to the LEM, the Apollo 11 astronauts " repressurised the cabin" . Then, according to NASA, "they removed their boots, slipped out of the backpacks heavy with life-support equipment that had kept them alive on the Moon's surface, re-opened the hatch and dumped them along with the crumpled food packages and filled urine bags, onto the surface" ??
There was no airlock on the Apollo 11 LEM. How did they open the hatch, after removing their space suits without suffering the effects of severe decompression from the vacuum and the intense heat ( or should that be cold)
skeeter
11 Feb 06
"The Flat Earth Society lodged one of the earliest complaints about the veracity of the Apollo missions. They claimed the various "earthrise" photos from Apollo 8, with the Moon in the foreground and the Earth in the background, were fakes. The primary basis of their claim was that it did not square with their belief that the Earth is flat". Wikipedia..What the hell did we do before wikipedia?
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by micarrThe interesting part of wikipedia is that the concept seems to work. Even though anyone can change anything at any time, I've done some testing (not extensive mind you) to check the accuracy of randomly chosen subjects and, it seems to be correct most of the time.
Wikipedia..What the hell did we do before wikipedia?
Amazing.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by stockeni am intrigued ... how do you test it?
The interesting part of wikipedia is that the concept seems to work. Even though anyone can change anything at any time, I've done some testing (not extensive mind you) to check the accuracy of randomly chosen subjects and, it seems to be correct most of the time.
Amazing.
if it did not square up with another source of info then i would tend to trust wikipedia more than the other source.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by flexmorehttp://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
i am intrigued ... how do you test it?
if it did not square up with another source of info then i would tend to trust wikipedia more than the other source.
This link above which I hope you all can open is an op-ed piece by the scientific journal Nature. Using a set of defined criteria they compared the quality of Wikipedia entries with those in their gold standard which was predictably enough Encyclopedia Brittanica out of which wikipedia does suprisingly very well. Peer review is the way to go and since it has done so well in science then it perhaps isnt so suprising that it has worked well for this database. Some quite good chess primers in there too actually.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by skeeterWhere do you get all these "facts"? Seems like 30+ years later, you're just picking up on a lot of conspiracy garbage statements and accepting everything you read at face value.
With the backpacks on, the astronauts needed about 35 " of clearance to squeeze into the LEM. The hatch on the LEM is only 30" wide. Thats tight and impossible given the other connontations.
After getting back to the LEM, the Apollo 11 astronauts " repressurised the cabin" . Then, according to NASA, "they removed their boots, slipped out of the backpa ...[text shortened]... e decompression from the vacuum and the intense heat ( or should that be cold)
skeeter
Sorry skeeter, the moon landings were not faked, anyone alive at the time could tell you that.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by skeeterWell... err.... let's see.
With the backpacks on, the astronauts needed about 35 " of clearance to squeeze into the LEM. The hatch on the LEM is only 30" wide. Thats tight and impossible given the other connontations.
After getting back to the LEM, the Apollo 11 astronauts " repressurised the cabin" . Then, according to NASA, "they removed their boots, slipped out of the backpa ...[text shortened]... e decompression from the vacuum and the intense heat ( or should that be cold)
skeeter
How about this. Your opening statements are all FALSE. With this in mind, it seems quite easy to dispose of your -- (svw searches for the right word... wait, wait -- he's almost there. Good he's got it!) STUPIDITY.
Not being smart enough to recognize at which stage the mission is being talked about might be why you are clueless.
It should be... "After reuniting with the Command Module, the astronauts passed all their stuff they wished to return to earth through the hatch from the LEM to the command module, leaving behind in the excursion module the stuff they no longer needed."
Thanks for the laugh and a good sociology lesson. It makes me appreciate abortion rights advocates even more than I do.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbi2Spoken like a true commie. Anything to oppose the US. Are you aware that Branson is a dedicated capitalist?
i think Skeeter is spot on and another fact that can not be explained by Nasa let alone any pro-moon-walkers here.
when will you people get it, Richard Branson's Virgin are closer to taking us to the moon than Nasa.😛
11 Feb 06
3 edits
Originally posted by bbi2Need I say more? I have a question for you. Who is more evil? A US soldier who dies trying to kill a mass murderer or the mass murderer who kills for God?
🙂
Im not a Commie, im pro USA on certain issues and against them on others.
For instance, their "friendly fire" in Iraq picking off those Brit soldiers.
u guys cant even shoot str8.🙄
Or are they the same?
BTW... your addition of smileys to such a crucial discussion shows me you have an IQ not quite to the turnip stage, and not likely to rise much above carrot at maturity.
edit... Ok. I have several asking me to stay on subject and stop bringing the "war" into everything. I argue that this is about the war. This threads purpose is what? To denegrate the US. Plain and simple. Taken in context of the culture war, I reserve the right to respond to anti-US propaganda by any and all. If Richard Branson had landed on the moon, would this thread even exist? Hell no. We would all be extolling his great accomplishment.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWith a response like that, you are behaving the same as the muslim people in that you cannot take any criticisms of your culture/ country.
Need I say more? I have a question for you. Who is more evil? A US soldier who dies trying to kill a mass murderer or the mass murderer who kills for God?
Or are they the same?
BTW... your addition of smileys to such a crucial discussion shows me you have an IQ not quite to the turnip stage, and not likely to rise much above carrot at maturity.
...[text shortened]... on, would this thread even exist? Hell no. We would all be extolling his great accomplishment.
btw, my point was quite valid, having discussed the British Armed Forces with people who have served/ are serving and who have served with, they have a great deal of respect for their no nonsense and professialism.
now discussing the US military hasnt gained that same respect in Iraq.
Killing friendly soldiers is no joke.
I still have respect for all the US & British soldiers who go to war as they are very brave and command that respect for putting their lives at risk for us.
I would definetly say the mass murderer who kills for god is more evil.
I am not against the US, but for you to think that by discussing the US overseas policy is spreading propaganda then u warrant the reputation of Americans as stupid.
The US is running the world, and if we cant discuss that in fear that u to get upset (like the muslims over a cartoon) then i will have to put u in the same boat as them.
btw: i think American should reenter the commonwealth and swear aligence to the crown. !!! 😀
11 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by bbi2Say what? So you don't think that us soldiers accidently killing their allies is funny? Why did you post the smiley then?
With a response like that, you are behaving the same as the muslim people in that you cannot take any criticisms of your culture/ country.
btw, my point was quite valid, having discussed the British Armed Forces with people who have served/ are serving and who have served with, they have a great deal of respect for their no nonsense and professialism.
now ...[text shortened]...
btw: i think American should reenter the commonwealth and swear aligence to the crown. !!! 😀
Critisism would demand that you actually state your ideas clearly. I have no idea whether you are for the war against Islam or against it. I get the feeling you have not even identified an enemy or indeed if there is one. Am I wrong?
As for the US running the world... that is really what this is all about, isn't it? This whole "moon landing" thing is just a safe way of protesting the obvious? I don't know how to respond to that. There are actors and there are victims. What can I say? You being a good German who has chosen to learn nothing from history should be glad that somebody is establishing a thousand years of domination.
11 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWho is more evil? A US soldier who dies trying to kill a mass murderer or the mass murderer who kills for God?
Need I say more? I have a question for you. Who is more evil? A US soldier who dies trying to kill a mass murderer or the mass murderer who kills for God?
Or are they the same?
BTW... your addition of smileys to such a crucial discussion shows me you have an IQ not quite to the turnip stage, and not likely to rise much above carrot at maturity.
...[text shortened]... on, would this thread even exist? Hell no. We would all be extolling his great accomplishment.
Come on SVW, we both know that depends on who your god is.