July 4th Quiz

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be XC-1a4-8816 wrote
in message <1540875.TLTb6xU7Mv@FreeBSD>:

So, have you finally done that research on the moon landing you lied
about doing right before you ran away this last time?

How about the research on Prussian Blue you like about doing right
before you ran away last year?

Or are you going to run away from the consequences of your lies
*again*, lying little tommie?

All you have to do is ask nice, and I can tell you how to prevent your
demonstrated ignorance from following you all around Usenet, despite
your use of XNoArchive -- and it doesn't involve concepts you don't
understand, like the difference between an OS and a shell (and between
them and a communications program, and between *them* and security
standards...)

Roger The Jolly Semite wrote:


You have yet to refute the Url's that I posted.


You mean the prussian blue that wasn't found in said gas-chambers?


No!



I hear you window users are real code slingers, how do you manage to use
such a complex O/S? I mean wow! WhooooooHooooooooo, You go Roger!

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be XC-1a4-8816 wrote
in message <1137634.km4gA3Pg5Z@FreeBSD>:





Wrong answer: from message
[Only registered users see links. ]:

<quote>

Lying little tommie, embarrassed by zir penchant for swallowing whole
crackpot conspiracy theories, has run away from the following thread
in yet another lame attempt to pretend zie did not get zir head handed
to him (reinforcing once again the advice that zie has been given time
and again: research *first*, think about it realistically, *then*
post)

<repost>

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be XC-A1CB-880-9 wrote
in message <[Only registered users see links. ]>:


is there *no* subject on which you are afraid to demonstrate your
ignorance, lying little tommie?


What, exactly, are those concentrations? Verifiable citation to a
reliable authority only, please.


Given thick the VA belts are, and the amount of time the spacecraft
spent actually exposed to them, how much shielding of what sort would
be required? Again, show your work.


How did you come up with this figure?


"Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon.
You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is
low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local
morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly
lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white
spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a
bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure
time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like
the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk
outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint
objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to
register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or
the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to
go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a
picture with the *exact same camera settings the astronauts used*, you
won't see any stars!"

from [Only registered users see links. ], emphasis
theirs.

In fact, this site discusses the television show lying little tommie
appears to accept as truth.

Research *first*, think about it a bit, *then* post, lying little
tommie...


Because, of course, there is no such thing as a remotely controlled
camera...


China did, huh? On what basis did they make this claim, assuming
you're not just lying about it?


"The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way
the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which
telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get
the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully.
It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In
later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose
because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks
like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way.
Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a
lot of people into thinking it waved"

Ibid.


"When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it
at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first,
easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure,
the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but
they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow
enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard
as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about
3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54
inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it
had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust
generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's
not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a
rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere
constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why
you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In
a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the
pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of
thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually
rather gentle."

Again, my thanks to Philip Plait over at Bad Astronomy
[Only registered users see links. ] for his succinct rebuttals to lying little
tommie's nonsense.

</repost>

</quote>



No, I mean the Prussian Blue that does not always form on exposure to
HCN, as can be seen in the fumigation chambers: if PB always forms,
why aren't the walls uniformly blue?



Trying to start a trend, are you?



*I'm* not the one that didn't even know what program I was using to
read news with, lying little tommie...

Roger The Jolly Semite wrote:


ftp.hq.nasa.gov search the files on that server for "Van Allen"


Nasa claims that we were in the belts for about an hour give or take a few
minutes. Calculate the radiation absorption factor with that of the
shielding that was used..What about the Starfish Prime test? Hmmmmmm, care
to deny that created even more radioisotopes?
I don't buy into this "Half-Life" radioactive decay either.



Stars would have been seen.......END OF STORY.


Much more evidence that it was a hoax than some tv show. That show did make
a few good points. America and Russia were in a major space-race. Russia
had just launched Sputnik etc..Hmmmmm, we couldn't even get a satalite in
space yet we manged to put a man on moon.


Must be some camera...Imagine a camra that will survive radiation..I guess
they don't make 'em like that anymore..


As you can see.......In about 3/5 years they may have the technology to get
a probe to the moon..
[Only registered users see links. ]
They guess that within 10-years or so, it could be possible to get a man on
the moon.

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be XC-1a4-8816 wrote
in message <1507214.78rZ2rM33a@FreeBSD>:





</repost>

</quote>


No, it's *your* claim, *you* do the research, and post the citation.

Remember, lying little tommie: research *first*, *then* post.

<quote>

<repost>



</repost>

</quote>


They do? Where?


No, your claim, *you* do the math -- but I will check it after, the
depth of your ignorance and willingness to lie being well known.


What about it? Or are you about to try to argue that this was an
attempt to "blast a hole" thru the belts?


Care to explain what relevancy this has to the Van Allen belts? Are
you under the impression that the VAB are composed of radioisotopes?


What, specifically, about the well documented and proven phenomena
known as radioactive decay, or the measurement thereof known as half
life do you "not buy into," and on what basis?

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


One usually ends a statement of faith with an "Amen," lying little
tommie.

On what basis do you make this declaration -- have you even tried
taking a picture under the conditions which applied?

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Not that you have been able to demonstrate.


No, Sputnik launched on October 4, 1957. The first American
satellite, Explorer I, was launched on Jan. 31, 1958. Mercury put a
man in space three years later (the count of known American satellites
by that point including Vanguard ('58) Pioneer 4 ('59 -- first craft
to break free of Earth's gravity) and Pioneer 5 and the first OSCAR,
designed and launched by a non-governmental American association of
ham radio operators. Get that? *Amateurs* put a satellite up.

Successful American manned space flights prior to Apollo included 10
Gemini flights between 1965 and 1966. The Apollo project's first
launch was December, 1968, more than a decade after Sputnik, and a
less than nine years after the mandate was given by Kennedy.

Really, lying little tommie: educate yourself at least a *little* on
these subjects before continuing to make yourself look foolish.

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Not so hard to imagine when one knows what one is talking about. This
*does* exclude you, however. The Pioneers and Vanguards are not the
only satellites to include cameras by the time of the Apollo launches.

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Still no citation for your quote. And guess what: it'll be even
longer before Liechtenstein puts a man on the moon -- guess that means
that these "Chinese" claims are wrong, too.

They don't have cable TV most places in West Texas -- guess *that*
technology doesn't exist either.

<quote>

<repost>


No comments on the flag and blast craters, lying little tommie?




Well? if PB *always* forms on exposure, why aren't the fumigation
chambers a nice shade of blue -- you do admit that *they* were
exposed, right?

XC-1a4-8816 wrote:
---------------
They're a JOKE, asswipe!!
That and the fact that you BELIEVED them that is!!
Steve

I did not mean to say this. I do not know whats gotten into me lately.
I've been in therapy once a week as of late, and am working on resolving my
abuse as a child.


Steve


"R. Steve Walz" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Roger wrote
in message
<[Only registered users see links. ] m>:





</repost>

</quote>


No, it's *your* claim, *you* do the research, and post the citation.

Remember, lying little tommie: research *first*, *then* post.

<quote>

<repost>



</repost>

</quote>


They do? Where?


No, your claim, *you* do the math -- but I will check it after, the
depth of your ignorance and willingness to lie being well known.


What about it? Or are you about to try to argue that this was an
attempt to "blast a hole" thru the belts?


Care to explain what relevancy this has to the Van Allen belts? Are
you under the impression that the VAB are composed of radioisotopes?


What, specifically, about the well documented and proven phenomena
known as radioactive decay, or the measurement thereof known as half
life do you "not buy into," and on what basis?

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


One usually ends a statement of faith with an "Amen," lying little
tommie.

On what basis do you make this declaration -- have you even tried
taking a picture under the conditions which applied?

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Not that you have been able to demonstrate.


No, Sputnik launched on October 4, 1957. The first American
satellite, Explorer I, was launched on Jan. 31, 1958. Mercury put a
man in space three years later (the count of known American satellites
by that point including Vanguard ('58) Pioneer 4 ('59 -- first craft
to break free of Earth's gravity) and Pioneer 5 and the first OSCAR,
designed and launched by a non-governmental American association of
ham radio operators. Get that? *Amateurs* put a satellite up.

Successful American manned space flights prior to Apollo included 10
Gemini flights between 1965 and 1966. The Apollo project's first
launch was December, 1968, more than a decade after Sputnik, and a
less than nine years after the mandate was given by Kennedy.

Really, lying little tommie: educate yourself at least a *little* on
these subjects before continuing to make yourself look foolish.

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Not so hard to imagine when one knows what one is talking about. This
*does* exclude you, however. The Pioneers and Vanguards are not the
only satellites to include cameras by the time of the Apollo launches.

<quote>

<repost>


</repost>

</quote>


Still no citation for your quote. And guess what: it'll be even
longer before Liechtenstein puts a man on the moon -- guess that means
that these "Chinese" claims are wrong, too.

They don't have cable TV most places in West Texas -- guess *that*
technology doesn't exist either.

<quote>

<repost>


No comments on the flag and blast craters, lying little tommie?




Well? if PB *always* forms on exposure, why aren't the fumigation
chambers a nice shade of blue -- you do admit that *they* were
exposed, right?

R. Steve Walz wrote:
--------------
Liar.
Steve Walz