So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed

  • 887 Replies
  • 138708 Views
*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #510 on: September 29, 2014, 08:31:33 AM »
Or maybe if there is one or more satellites launched on a rocket, those are also included in the count.  So a rocket that has 3 satellites on it would be 4 spacecraft.

Also possible, so keep your mind open.
Oh I will. If you want , we can average it out over time and say that 2 satellites were launched with every rocket, meaning 600 rockets launched, so now we are down to 1 launch a month. Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
I think I'm been very generous here.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #511 on: September 29, 2014, 08:38:10 AM »
Or maybe if there is one or more satellites launched on a rocket, those are also included in the count.  So a rocket that has 3 satellites on it would be 4 spacecraft.

Also possible, so keep your mind open.
Oh I will. If you want , we can average it out over time and say that 2 satellites were launched with every rocket, meaning 600 rockets launched, so now we are down to 1 launch a month. Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?

I think you are doing the math wrong:

1 Rocket + 2 Satellites=3 Spacecraft

So 400 launches

Quote
I think I'm been very generous here.

Considering you are completely biased against manned space travel as a possibility and know nothing about the logistics, I would not say you are being generous at all.

Here is an essay breaking down space launch statistics since 1957 if you are interested:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1598/1
[/quote]
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #512 on: September 29, 2014, 09:24:30 AM »
1957 to present day is 57 years. That means approximately 21 rockets were launched each year, every year for 57 years to present day...OR...to put it more simply, one space rocket launch every 2 weeks, roughly.
Does this seem plausible to you, seriously?
Yes, it does.  At least if does if you have some small clue as to how a space program works.

Here are a few things to consider.  First of all, a rocket launch does not necessarily mean a satellite launch, or even a successful launch.  In the early years of space flight, both sides basically used modified military rockets (usually ICBMs) because they were readily available (cold War and all).  Also remember that there were a lot of launch failures, especially early on.  For example, they launched 4 N-1 moon rockets, but they all failed shortly after launch. 

Another thing to consider is that there are more than likely several actual launch pads at the facility, meaning that they can have several rockets in different stages of preparedness at the same time.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #513 on: September 29, 2014, 09:45:45 AM »
Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
It wasn't that many, but even if it were, then what, exactly, is your problem?

Seriously, what aspect of the logistics would make this impossible? 

If Hyundai's main factory can churn out an average of 5,600 vehicles a day, what makes you think these guys can't build one rocket per month?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #514 on: September 29, 2014, 10:37:27 AM »
Can they really factory churn out 1 space rocket a month to be launched from this site do you think?
It wasn't that many, but even if it were, then what, exactly, is your problem?

Seriously, what aspect of the logistics would make this impossible? 

If Hyundai's main factory can churn out an average of 5,600 vehicles a day, what makes you think these guys can't build one rocket per month?

We are not even talking about production.  We are talking about executing a launch plan.  Even easier I would imagine.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #515 on: September 29, 2014, 10:51:00 AM »
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian?  Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up.  As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.

I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #516 on: September 29, 2014, 10:54:37 AM »
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian?  Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up.  As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.

I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.

*

Heiwa

  • 10394
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #517 on: September 29, 2014, 11:04:45 AM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings?  That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:

"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."

I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years.  Not even Buzz.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #518 on: September 29, 2014, 11:17:59 AM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings?  That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:

"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."

I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years.  Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #519 on: September 29, 2014, 11:22:26 AM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings?  That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:

"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."

I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years.  Not even Buzz.

I know you like to crow on about no one winning your challenge, but you should know that the fact that no one has collected says nothing about the veracity of your claim.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #520 on: September 29, 2014, 11:26:47 AM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings?  That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:

"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."

I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years.  Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.

Other than the evidence already provided of course.  Other than the existing evidence, it is true that non-existing evidence will be provided.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #521 on: September 29, 2014, 11:28:22 AM »
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian?  Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up.  As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.

I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.

So... you have never used a magnifying glass then.  Or a telescope... Got it.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #522 on: September 29, 2014, 12:13:53 PM »
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Are you seriously using that site as support for your argument that NASA faked the moon landings?  That website also has this to say about atomic bombs:

"...atomic bombs are just rubbish propaganda. They do not work. No atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945. It was just propaganda."

I like this post. Buzz knew he could get away with an innocent Moon visit 1969 as USA had got away with the atomic bomb hoax since 1945. And there we are today. Plenty so called news by media is just proganda. The sheeple believe anything on TV. I offer anybody €1M proving me wrong in two propaganda instances incl. Buzz fairy tale. Nobody has collected since many years.  Not even Buzz.
Nobody ever will because to prove it would constitute providing physical evidence, and we all know that's an impossibility.
I suppose that part of the problem is that you would need to go to the moon to personally see the best physical evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #523 on: September 29, 2014, 12:37:27 PM »
I never mentioned a personal space flight. Read what I said. I said, all I need for proof, is to see astronauts get into a rocket with me being as close as possible to it, watching them enter it and be locked inside, then launch. That's all I would need. As far as I know, it should be easy to achieve on a small budget, as in simply travelling expenses to the launch area and the usage of their ultra brilliant optics to ensure I see enough evidence with my own eyes in REAL time.
How's your Russian?  Since they're about the only ones currently sending up astronauts (cosmonauts) on a regular basis, you might want to talk with them to see what they can do to hook you up.  As I recall, they also let observers a lot closer to the launch pad than the Americans do.
As you recall? who actually told you this?
Also, assuming you know the score about it all, can I view the cosmonauts actaully getting into the rocket with my own eyes and watch them take off, with my own eyes - not by looking at a screen, but by looking in real time in open air through binoculars or something?
Standing me a few miles away with a magnifying glass will not convince me of anything.

I hate to nit-pick, but it's my nature to do so. That being said, you wouldn't use a magnifying glass to view objects at a distance but you probably know that and were typing in a hurry.
I hate to nitpick but it's in my nature. Yes you would use a magnifying glass to view things at distance, but you probably know that and were just typing in a hurry.

So... you have never used a magnifying glass then.  Or a telescope... Got it.

I HAVE used magnifying glasses and telescopes. What's your problem???

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #524 on: September 29, 2014, 12:51:32 PM »
I was responding to sceptimatic.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #525 on: September 29, 2014, 12:57:17 PM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #527 on: September 29, 2014, 01:45:41 PM »
I was responding to sceptimatic.

Sorry...so many embedded quotes and I got sort of lost...

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #528 on: September 29, 2014, 02:35:06 PM »
I was responding to sceptimatic.

Sorry...so many embedded quotes and I got sort of lost...

No problem.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

BJ1234

  • 1931
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #529 on: September 29, 2014, 03:19:41 PM »
This argument gets used time and time again and it's a silly argument to be honest.
There are many things in life that I accept. I accept them because I can actually go and verify them if I wish.
Oh good, you know you can go and verify rocket launches by actually going to one right?

Quote
Having said that, I have no wish to verify things that do not strike me as being faked or peak my interest.
Oh so basically you are being closed minded.  You see something, decide it is fake, then not investigate it anymore.  Good to know.

Quote
I do question things that appear to be borne, more of fantasy or sheer dis-info/mis-info, or potential blatant lies.
Much if not all of this stuff is usually classified as top secret.
No you don't question things.  You deny things.  Big difference.  If you questioned things you would accept answers to those questions regardless if the answer you receive goes against your views.

Quote
You and anyone else can sit there all day long and tell me that this and that exists because you have been there and seen it with your own eyes, but the truth is, you haven't.
How do you know that the person telling you their personal experience didn't experience what they say?  Are you some all knowing being that just can tell?

Quote
The best you can do is to assume what you are told is genuine, based on no more than the study of what has been put on a plate for you to feed off, of which you accept, unconditionally as a fact with no requirement of physical evidence for verification of this supposed fact.

And the best you can do is deny every thing presented to you based no more than on the visions in your head.  Which you accept, unconditionally as fact with no requirement of physical evidence for verification of this supposed fact.

Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #530 on: September 29, 2014, 03:51:34 PM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

blnjms

  • 162
  • Just another RE'er
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #531 on: September 29, 2014, 04:16:48 PM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?

Good one!  ;D Poor Scepti.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #532 on: September 30, 2014, 12:38:50 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #533 on: September 30, 2014, 01:25:16 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.

From Wikipedia:

A telescope is an instrument that aids in the observation of remote objects by collecting electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light). The first known practical telescopes were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century, using glass lenses. They found use in terrestrial applications and astronomy.

Within a few decades, the reflecting telescope was invented, which used mirrors. In the 20th century many new types of telescopes were invented, including radio telescopes in the 1930s and infrared telescopes in the 1960s. The word telescope now refers to a wide range of instruments detecting different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in some cases other types of detectors.

Happy to help.

Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #534 on: September 30, 2014, 02:53:52 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
No, it's basically considered sorcery.

What is probably the case is that whenever you look down one, a wizard working for the conspiracy telepathically beams down the image you think you should see.  This is why everyone thinks they can see the moon, or the ISS, or a ship going over the horizon.  Whereas if they could see what was really going on it would be clear that the the sun is a reflection on an ice dome, the moon is a reflection of the sun, the earth is flat, the ISS doesn't exist and that ships that have apparently gone over the horizon can still be seen.

One day I will find the Wizard Overlord and defeat him in single combat, then the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will see the world as it really is.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #535 on: September 30, 2014, 03:00:36 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?

Yes, I do. They're quite simple. Do you find them mysterious?
So, then tell me what the function of a telescope is.

From Wikipedia:

A telescope is an instrument that aids in the observation of remote objects by collecting electromagnetic radiation (such as visible light). The first known practical telescopes were invented in the Netherlands at the beginning of the 17th century, using glass lenses. They found use in terrestrial applications and astronomy.

Within a few decades, the reflecting telescope was invented, which used mirrors. In the 20th century many new types of telescopes were invented, including radio telescopes in the 1930s and infrared telescopes in the 1960s. The word telescope now refers to a wide range of instruments detecting different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum, and in some cases other types of detectors.

Happy to help.
So what is the prime function of the telescope?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #536 on: September 30, 2014, 03:02:53 AM »
Does anyone have any idea what a telescope actually does?
No, it's basically considered sorcery.

What is probably the case is that whenever you look down one, a wizard working for the conspiracy telepathically beams down the image you think you should see.  This is why everyone thinks they can see the moon, or the ISS, or a ship going over the horizon.  Whereas if they could see what was really going on it would be clear that the the sun is a reflection on an ice dome, the moon is a reflection of the sun, the earth is flat, the ISS doesn't exist and that ships that have apparently gone over the horizon can still be seen.

One day I will find the Wizard Overlord and defeat him in single combat, then the scales will fall from people's eyes and they will see the world as it really is.
Irespect your opinion on it. I don't follow that but, each to their own. ;)

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #537 on: September 30, 2014, 03:05:06 AM »
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #538 on: September 30, 2014, 03:07:51 AM »
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?

*

mathsman

  • 487
  • one of the lads
Re: So I guess Buzz Aldrin is still brainwashed
« Reply #539 on: September 30, 2014, 03:11:21 AM »
So what is the prime function of the telescope?
I'll take this at face value.
The prime function is to magnify the images of distant objects.
Thank you. So in effect it is a magnifying glass, correct?

No.