Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 116

Thread: Someone who thinks Moon hoax is proved

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Here's an e-mail of someone who thinks the Moon hoax is proved, but I doubt it.

    From brian-marshall@usa.net Sat Mar 17 13:32:08 2001
    Date: 10 Mar 2001 01:41:24 MST
    From: brian marshall (brian-marshall@usa.net)
    Subject: MOON HOAX PROVED


    Please send this to all people in all nations. Tell them who solved the hoax
    as my reward.
    Lets get this thing buried. I need intelligent young open minded people who
    can comprehend that today^s society is sick, and is in the hands of evil men
    who have been fighting good for two thousand years. To contact me, go to
    http://www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm
    And or email ycon@home.com My mail is monitored and if you do contact me,
    triple send it to the above and ooyes@usa.net and brian-marshall@usa.net

    My name is Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall. My ax to grind is ancient, my
    family is the true royal family of the United kingdom. The same cults that
    dominate the world have stolen my Kingdom. I will get it back, and to do that
    I have looked at the moon landings and have proven absolutely that it is a
    World Order hoax.


    I have just read through many Moon Hoax pages, most are in America and I
    addressed the letter to them.

    I have several comments.
    .
    I posted the information you seek at the above site last week, I started
    looking at the Moon date on February 25th 2001 and this is what I observed to
    be a Hoax.
    .
    I fully realize that it is not a proud moment for Americans to face the facts
    that their government is a corporate club with ancient fraternities, but that
    is how it is.
    .
    A good movie to watch is Skulls and Wag the Dog.
    .
    I feel for you all, and I do not make frivolous claims to hurt you or to
    bolster my ego. I just look for the truth, it^s the Jesus thing to do, and I
    have always conducted my affairs as if I was looking through his eyes.
    .
    I have several astronomy programs, one by Carl Sagen and another called Home
    Planet. They are very accurate; in fact the Home Planet program measures the
    distance to the moon down to a Kilometer at any given time thousands of years
    in the past or future on any date.
    .
    Being a scientist I have gad to deal with facts for many years.
    .
    These programs confirm the shadow on the Moon at the landing site as being in
    the dark at 4:17 PM EDT July 20th 1969 the moment of the alleged landing.
    .
    The landing site was 0.67 North Latitude by 23:23 East Longitude.
    .
    The sunlight at the time of landing was at 35 degrees East.
    .
    The landing therefore was impossible. Not that the landing could not be done
    in the dark, it would be a silly thing to do, but the film NASA shows of the
    descent is in daylight and no shadow is seen at all from orbit and the film of
    the touchdown is in the light.
    .
    We are looking for truth are we not?
    .
    The sunlight on the moon moves across the surface at 9 miles per hour, not
    like the earth, as the moon turns on its axis once in 29 1/2 days. This means
    that when the sun did rise at that location, the shadows would be miles long;
    totally dark in the shadow, as defused light of an atmosphere is not present
    on the Moon.
    .
    Some have said that there is an atmosphere on the moon, well there is not.
    This is how it is, none. No atmosphere no wind, this is why there are
    photographs of Aldrin setting up a solar wind experiment. Solar wind has no
    effect as it is subatomic particles.
    .
    The flag waving is not a factor at all because there is no wind, so what ever
    made it wave, could not be caused by moon wind. It is not important here as
    we have adequate proof it is a fake and this is just another mistake.
    .
    The important issue here is the glare from the sun. If any of you have ever
    used a welding rod, the light of it burns the white of the eyes, even if your
    face is turned away. Not to mention the burnt skin of the face. I have done
    years of welding, take my word for it.
    .
    Compared to the welding rod, the glare from the sun on the moon is so bright,
    it would burn the skin let alone the white of the eyes and the retina is
    magnified focusing the light. Speculating that you could walk around on the
    moon with a shield up is absolute, it can not be done, the sun is so bright
    that the lack of atmosphere combined with a surface temperature of 250
    degrees, hotter than boiling point, means that a space craft, a lunar lander,
    could remain for only a short time as the surface temperature of the machine
    and the space suits would rocket up.
    .
    Lets get to the facts, it was a landing that would have to have occurred in
    the dark.
    .
    The light is 20 times brighter than on the earth.
    .
    There is no atmosphere on the Moon.
    .
    The daylight temperature is 250 degrees.
    .
    They must have landed in the dark.
    .
    In addition, if you take the time and down load the 16mm frames taken from the
    Lander while both astronauts were out of the Lander, the movie camera moves
    about panning up and down and from side to side by several feet. And this
    means someone in the Lander other then the two on the surface.
    .
    In later moon walks, no astronaut has his shield up.
    .
    As this was 1969 the information was not readily available on the web, so they
    were not scrutinized as today, nor was there any doubt that there could be a
    conspiracy, no mention of World Order, Freemasonry, Knights Templar or Skull
    and Bones conspiracies, but the reality is that this is indeed the case.
    .
    I am an old man now, and have a great deal of interaction with people in high
    places and all I can say is, take an old mans advise, it is all a war of power
    in high places. Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have
    for lunch.
    .
    All elections are subject to media owned by share holders who own every thing
    and can make of break a politician overnight, and never will you read the
    truth in a city paper, as they are all owned by the same club.
    .
    I am sad to reveal these things, I have many friends in America, but I also no
    that if the America giant is made aware of what their government is up to,
    watch out.

    Brian.


    Anybody care to debunk him?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    108
    Well, I'm not qualified to debunk any of the actual substance of his message, but his claim about being a member of Britain true royal family was quite interesting. First, I would really like to know which family he thinks is legitimate? He couldn't possibly be making a claim about the Restoration period or the Norman conquest, could he? I suppose I could e-mail him, but that's a can of worms I think I'll leave tightly sealed. Incidentally, one would not expect to find a monarchist distraught that various states are apparently run by self-interested cartels. Furthermore, when his ancestor was removed from the throne his family apparently moved abroad, because English is certainly not his native language. I don't even think we need astronomy for this one...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-27 16:32, AstroMike wrote that Brian wrote:
    I am an old man now,
    Shame. He must have lived through it even, and he can't remember it. The flag waving discussions, for instance, or the daylight/nighttime landing questions.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,808
    I'll pass! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Where would one start with somebody who has everything wrong? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] Not even getting into the whole "New World Order" and "I am the true heir to the throne of England" load of **. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    613
    "My name is Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall. My ax to grind is ancient, my family is the true royal family of the United kingdom."

    And I am Czar of all the Russias. Pleased to meet you.

    God, what a frelling idiot.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    <a name="20020227">

    Anyone familiar with the Home Planet software, or the Carl Sagan software? Is it possible that either one is in error?

    As near as I can tell, Apollo 11 landed fairly near the terminator, in sunlight. The ground would have recently been in shadow, and the surrounding terrain would have cast strong shadows.

    Update: I checked all the landing times and sites with SkyMap, and sure enough, all were at sites that were on the terminator just a couple days before--makes the area cooler, more apt to be in sunlight longer, and the relief more pronounced. Of course, they'd say that even if it were faked, right?

    So, how does this guy think that a dark landing site would have escaped notice for thirty years?

    <font size=-1>[Added Update]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-01-28 07:09 ]</font>

    <font size=-1>[Added name identifier]</font>

    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-02-27 13:10 ]</font>

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Anyone familiar with the Home Planet software, or the Carl Sagan software? Is it possible that either one is in error?

    I don't think the programs are wrong. I just think the guy is simply wrong.

    http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075258.jpg

    This is an image of the Eagle approaching the landing site. Note that the terminator is well defined.

    Also read the caption: http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS11/10075258.htm


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-01-27 21:59 ]</font>

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    140
    Only two things to say (ad homnium, I suppose, but it's just too easy to let go...)
    1) I probably have as firm a claim to the British throne as he does, and

    2) http://www.makecashonline.com isn't a homepage that fills you with credibility.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    I just found that http://www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm is unable to be found, and http://www.makecashonline.com/ is forbidden access. Anyone else?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    http://www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm

    Hm. Make cash online.

    My ax to grind is ancient, my
    family is the true royal family of the United kingdom.


    Which "true" royal family would that be? Britons, help me out here. How many ruling houses has the U.K. had over the centuries?

    The same cults that
    dominate the world ...


    Or in other words, "rant rant rant Masons blah blah rant Illuminati rant rant Templars rant rant blah blah the phone company blah blah."

    I have just read through many Moon Hoax pages

    We're proud of you. Have you been to school and studied physics? Astronomy? Chemistry? Engineering? History?

    A good movie to watch is Skulls and Wag the Dog.

    Translation: Hollywood screen writers always get the facts right and never embellish anything, so that's what I'm basing my arguments on.

    I have always conducted my affairs as if I was looking through his eyes.

    Wow, delusions of grandeur and godlike vision.
    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    Being a scientist I have gad to deal with facts for many years.

    So this guy is rightful heir to the British throne, a scientist, and Jesus' buddy. Oh, but it's not an ego thing.

    [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

    Astronomy programs are great, and usually accurate enough, but knowing what you're looking at is a different thing altogether.

    These programs confirm the shadow on the Moon at the landing site as being in
    the dark at 4:17 PM EDT July 20th 1969 the moment of the alleged landing.


    The problem is that in order to locate the terminator you have to have extremely accurate positions of not just the moon, but also the earth and the sun. Accuracy in these kinds of programs is accomplished by harmonic equations. It takes about 300 elements, for example, to accurately produce a sun-fixed location for the earth on any given date. So in order to evaluate the simulation's accuracy we need to peek inside and see whether they provide dozens or hundreds or thousands of harmonic elements.

    And I'm sure Carl Sagan did not sit down and program the thing himself. I'm sure he put his name on something that someone else had done.

    but the film NASA shows of the
    descent is in daylight and no shadow is seen at all from orbit


    That's a big negatory. One of the proof photos I use quite often shows Eagle headed right for the terminator.

    The problem is simulation. It's a common thing for someone to say, "My free astronomy program shows the moon was in shadow," or, "I modelled this scene in 3D Studio and didn't see the same lighting effects." Failure to create an accurate simulation is not proof that the real-life occurrence was fraudulent.

    The intended landing site was published in the press kits. Armstrong was only a few miles off. Every single telescope on earth was no doubt trained on that spot. Don't you think some astronomer in Russia or China would have said, "Hey, they're landing ten degrees on the dark side of the terminator!"

    Some have said that there is an atmosphere on the moon, well there is not. This is how it is, none.

    Someone who claims to be a scientist would know that the moon does indeed have an atmosphere, just not one that's physically significant at the macro level. It doesn't "blow". It doesn't scatter light. It's just a somewhat denser concentration of gas molecules near the surface.

    The flag waving is not a factor at all ... this is just another mistake.

    A scientist would know what made the flag look and act as it did and would not call it a "mistake", whether or not it was irrelevant to his argument.

    I have done years of welding, take my word for it.

    Scientist, welder, heir to the British throne, and so forth.

    Compared to the welding rod, the glare from the sun on the moon is so bright, it would burn the skin let alone the white of the eyes and the retina is
    magnified focusing the light.


    Well, compared to a welding rod the glare from the sun is composed of an entirely different spectrum of electromagnetic light. Welding arcs are heavy on the ultraviolet, which is what causes sunburn and retina damage. The shorter the wavelength, the nastier EM radiation is.

    I think it was Dave Scott or John Young who complained that the sunlight gave him a headache. But it's only about 20% brighter than the sun as seen from the earth. You could easily walk around with the visor up, as long as you don't stare directly into the sun.

    ... a lunar lander, could remain for only a short time as the surface temperature of the machine and the space suits would rocket up.

    Obviously our welder-scientist-king was sleeping during thermodynamics class. The temperature an object reaches on the moon is a factor of how much light it reflects versus absorbs, and the emissivity of the material from which it is made. Also, the lunar module was cooled by sublimation, as were the space suits.

    Contrary to some outlandish claims made elsewhere on this forum, things in space near the earth an dmoon do not uniformly reach a temperature of 250 F.

    The light is 20 times brighter than on the earth.

    Twenty percent, not twenty times. No scientist would argue that the earth's atmosphere absorbs or reflects 95% of the incoming light.

    The daylight temperature is 250 degrees.

    The temperature of sunlit lunar surface material at high noon is 250 F or so. That's not the only temperature that exists on the moon.

    In addition, if you take the time and down load the 16mm frames taken from the
    Lander while both astronauts were out of the Lander, the movie camera moves
    about panning up and down and from side to side by several feet.


    Those are video frames taken from the television camera which was remotely controlled by flight controllers on earth. It was one of the lunar module's most publicized features. The 16mm DAC was only used to record traverses, when the rover's S-band antenna could not be stabilized.

    And this means someone in the Lander other then the two on the surface.

    Well, now I'm confused. Did they land in the dark because of the heat, or did they fake the whole thing and not go in the first place?

    In later moon walks, no astronaut has his shield up.

    False. Jack Schmitt spend most of EVA-3 with his visor up since he had scratched it so badly during prior EVAs. He couldn't see through it very well.

    As this was 1969 the information was not readily available on the web, so they
    were not scrutinized as today


    But they were nevertheless available. Legitimate historians and researchers from all over the world have been examining them for decades. The only thing web publishing has accomplished is to bring this material into easy reach of the crackpots who otherwise didn't know how to obtain it.

    I am an old man now

    Hence his allegiance to the old-fashioned "All the anomalies are mistakes" theory instead of the much more fashionable "All the anomalies are deliberate clues from whistle-blowers" theory.

    and have a great deal of interaction with people in high places

    Most royal welders do. Does that mean he's now part of the conspiracy?

    Anybody care to debunk him?

    Fish in a barrel.

    His entire argument is based simply on the prediction of a simulation of unknown fidelity.

    As for his being a welder, I'd say that's the only plausible thing in this whole rant.

    As for his being a devout Christian, probably true but irrelevant. My experience as a Christian is that their skill at critical thought is in inverse proportion to the degree of their professed devotion.

    As for his being heir to the British throne, that's for geneologists to determine.

    As for his being a scientists -- absolutely no way.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Anyone familiar with the Home Planet software, or the Carl Sagan software? Is it possible that either one is in error?

    If it's sold over the counter or downloaded from the net, it's likely in error enough to account for this. As noted above, these programs are very difficult to write.

    Most of them assume an earth-fixed coordinate system and plot the paths of objects on the celestial sphere by means of harmonic equations. Harmonic equations are the mathematics behind Spirograph. It usually takes hundreds of terms to even closely approximate the true path of the object in the sky, and each of these terms has four coefficients with ten or twelve decimal places in each. Very easy to make a typo.

    So, how does this guy think that a dark landing site would have escaped notice for thirty years?

    As his rant demonstrates, I don't think he's really thought this through.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-28 08:48, JayUtah wrote:
    If it's sold over the counter or downloaded from the net, it's likely in error enough to account for this. As noted above, these programs are very difficult to write.
    I did a quick search for Home Planet, and found it at www.fourmilab.ch. Apparently, the author is John Walker, author of AutoCAD and founder of Autodesk. Pretty impressive credentials. I downloaded Home Planet lite ("has no accuracy or feature limitations"), and ran it for the date and time of Apollo 11. It appeared to be the same result that I got with SkyMap. Nice program, by the way.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    108
    The intended landing site was published in the press kits. Armstrong was only a few miles off. Every single telescope on earth was no doubt trained on that spot. Don't you think some astronomer in Russia or China would have said, "Hey, they're landing ten degrees on the dark side of the terminator!"
    Utah,

    Certainly your post rocks, but this part that I have quoted concerned me. It is my understanding that telescopes would be incapable of seeing Apollo activity on the moon, which I presume includes landings.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-28 11:09, odysseus0101 wrote:
    Certainly your post rocks, but this part that I have quoted concerned me. It is my understanding that telescopes would be incapable of seeing Apollo activity on the moon, which I presume includes landings.
    I don't think that he is saying that they could actually see them through telescopes. It's just that, yep, there were a lot of telescopes looking at the site--and they would have surely pointed out that it was dark, if it had been.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    It is my understanding that telescopes would be incapable of seeing Apollo activity on the moon, which I presume includes landings.

    Your understanding is correct, and Grapes has already given the correct clarification.

    It's fairly easy to look up the landing coordinates and stick a push-pin on your lunar map at those coordinates. And it's fairly easy to visually locate that site relative to prominent lunography (e.g., the boundaries of the Sea of Tranquility). So even though you had no prayer of seeing the actual spacecraft on the lunar surface, you could see the portion of the lunar surface where the spacecraft is supposed to be. And it would be reasonably obvious whether or not it was in light or shadow.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    Not to mention that NASA would have to be a pack of doughheads to make such a blatant blunder.

    If I have to nominate a candidate for doughheaddedness between NASA and His Majesty the Welding Scientist, I think I'll choose...

    [sound of grinding metal as Donnie tries to make up his mind...]

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Apparently, the author is John Walker, author of AutoCAD and founder of Autodesk. Pretty impressive credentials.

    I have to agree. Although there is little in common between CAD software and astronomical modeling software, I've worked in the innards of both kinds of software. If you or I can understand both problem spaces well enough, there's no reason why an eminent software professional would have difficulty mastering both problems.

    I've already mentioned the problems inherent with the type of modeling these programs typically use. I'll have to download it myself and see if I can determine the methodology. That helps us understand whether to attribute error to the software or to the operator.

    You say you confirmed that Sky Map and Home Planet gave you the same results. (A good bit of conformation, by the way, and evidence that the software is not really at fault.) And you said that Sky Map showed that the Apollo 11 landing site had been in darkness. Did this refute the author's assertion that it was actually in darkness at the time of the landing? Is the author simply misreporting the results? Or is the author correctly reporting what these programs say for the given time and place?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    Jay, you used the term "lunography". I have never heard of that term. I presume you mean "selenography"?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    I presume you mean "selenography"?

    Yeah, whatever the lunar equivalent of "geography" is.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,015
    On 2002-01-28 12:38, JayUtah wrote:
    And you said that Sky Map showed that the Apollo 11 landing site had been in darkness. Did this refute the author's assertion that it was actually in darkness at the time of the landing? Is the author simply misreporting the results? Or is the author correctly reporting what these programs say for the given time and place?
    Both programs showed that the Apollo 11 site was sunlit at the time of landing. All Apollo landing sites had recently been in darkness--they were a day or two away from the terminator.

    I think the author was misinterpreting the results. The programs don't really give a number value(s) for the location of the terminator.

  21. #21
    JayUtah - Once more the righter of wrongs... good job. Do you have a moon hoax form response yet? You probably don't even need to cut and paste the outragous claims anymore... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

    ------------------
    GofW said: "I just found that http://www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm is unable to be found, and http://www.makecashonline.com/ is forbidden access. Anyone else?"
    --------------------

    The page cannot be found...
    however a google search on the url turned up

    http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/mo...americans.html
    This is the letter that was reproduced on the original post of this thread. Clicking the back button on the bottom takes us to

    http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html
    Same old same old with this moon hoax page, but they did provide one link to a nonhoax page.

    A second link from google was
    http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm105577.html


    Removing the http:// part on an additional google search reveals they have it cached at

    http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...x.htm%22&hl=en

    Here you can read about such great topics as "Life Without Debt", the "Jesus Index Page" and the moon hoax (dis)information. You could learn about the great pyramid dimensions... Washington's birthday... how to make up useless information by multiplying mission numbers... and more (or less).

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556
    I had just viewed this guy's www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm+%22www.makecashonline.com/nasahoax.htm%22&hl=en ]site[/url]. Boy, he's a total crackpot, who has no clue what he's talking about.

  23. #23
    right on mike...

    he's also too obsessed with numerology... and not good at it either. Let's hope he's not welding anything that we might use. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,254
    Some have said that there is an atmosphere on the moon, well there is not. This is how it is, none.

    Someone who claims to be a scientist would know that the moon does indeed have an atmosphere, just not one that's physically significant at the macro level. It doesn't "blow". It doesn't scatter light. It's just a somewhat denser concentration of gas molecules near the surface.


    Am I correct in thinking that the Apollo missions actually doubled the concentration of gas at the surface of the Moon? Did I read that somewhere?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    Do you have a moon hoax form response yet?

    Yes. It goes something like this:

    "You're all nuts."

    You could learn about the great pyramid dimensions.

    I love how people only pay attention to the Giza pyramids. They just happen to be convenient to Cairo and thus suitable for package tours. I'm something of an Egypt-phile, and have been there a few times. There are about 70 major pyramids along the Nile, and I've seen many of them. They don't have "magic" dimensions. Some, in fact, are clearly learn-as-you-go exercises in pyramid design.

    Poor reasoning is like potato chips. You can't have just one. You have to have the whole bag.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,575
    On 2002-01-28 12:34, Donnie B. wrote:
    Not to mention that NASA would have to be a pack of doughheads to make such a blatant blunder.
    While I agree that the royal welder is every bit the crackpot Piper was, I would encourage you not to pursue this line of thought. These "doughheads" blew one Mars orbit insertion by using the wrong engineering units, another by programing the probe to ignore them at a critical point in deorbit.....youknowtherest. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    556


    <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-01-31 19:55 ]</font>

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,442
    These "doughheads" blew one Mars orbit insertion by using the wrong engineering units, another by programing the probe to ignore them at a critical point in deorbit.

    Thank Dan Goldin and his misguided "faster, better, cheaper" philosophy. It's quite contrary to the way the program was run in the 1960s, and quite contrary to the way an engineering-intensive operation should be run. The idea that "faster" and "cheaper" can be at all compatible with "better" is pure crap.

    To save money college student interns were asked compute the orbital manuever parameters and JPL didn't have the manpower to check the figures until it was too late. For the other probe, integration testing that was eliminated as an overpriced luxury would have caught the failure.

    All for the sake of the almighty buck. "Dough"-head is right. Never let bean-counters run something that depends on reliable engineering. Goldin tried to reduce the cost of space exploration by shaving programs. Instead he ended up wasting the money that was spent.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    7,808
    faster, better, cheaper
    Pick any two!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    108
    Your understanding is correct, and Grapes has already given the correct clarification.
    Perhaps if I had taken a moment's thought before questioning you I would have realized how obvious your original meaning was. Thanks.

Similar Threads

  1. Riemann hypothesis proved?
    By ToSeek in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2008-Nov-09, 10:21 PM
  2. "Apollo Moon Hoax" Hoax Planetarium Show - Boulder, CO
    By stu in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-17, 12:55 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2006-Aug-27, 10:24 PM
  4. MOON LANDING PROVED FAKE!!!!! Flash clip (really funny)
    By Stylesjl in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-26, 11:01 PM
  5. It's Moon Madness! - Phil's Moon Hoax talk at Sudekum planet
    By AstroMike in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2002-Apr-21, 03:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: