Why not admit that Hubble is lost and gone ?

[fuelair]

Embiggened and emphasized this^^^^^ important thought!!!!!!!!

actually I assume they separate to post, but reassemble immediately after!!!!!

 

[Andy_Ross]

Did you know there are Company's that can project artificial STARS/Planets in the sky??

Did you know that these companies have been in Kahuts with 'nasa' for DECADES??

How hard would you suspect it would be to project an ISS (or anything else for that matter...ON SCHEDULE)??


regards

You have evidence of these companies and their capabilities?

 

[Tale]

The Why:

Well The Moon/Space Missions ect ect were conjured by satan to finally show once and for all that: Pythagoras/Eratosthenes/Copernicus/Kepler/Newton (All Free Masons) were right, that we live on a "Spinning Ball"; which was first peddled by pagan sun worshipers ( " SOLAR " System) millennia in the past and Codified by Copernicus in the early 1500's. Whereby PROVING The Bible False!
They NEEDED THE PICTURES!!

The impetus was jump started by Admiral Byrd's apparent discovery of the DOME "Firmament" in Antarctica during Operation Deep Freeze 1956-1957, when the Entire Continent was quickly Shut Down (SEE Antarctic Treaty), "nasa's" birth 1958 and immediate militarization ( headed by Nazis collected as a result of Operation Paperclip, the ones Russia didn't get), then an Upper Atmosphere Nuclear Bombardment 1958-1962 by the US and Russia that made Nagasaki and Hiroshima look like "tiddly winks": www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/hane.html
SEE Operation 'Dominic' ---"Of The LORD", Sub-Program "Operation "FishBowl"

fyi, not all the Nazis from Paperclip went to "nasa" a good many went to HOLLYWOOD.

I'd play that video game. Provided it cut back on the religious elements and added robots.

 

[threadworm]

2 until know.... a Trillion, More??
[Repetitive gibberish removed]

Trillions of Dollars for a scrap book of "Photo-Shopped/Doctored" Pictures...wonder what the Profit Margin is?

Gone back to those original Apollo & Gemini images yet? The paper ones before photoshop?

No?

Thought not.

 

[AdamSK]

1/16th of a Mile 'Orbital Decay' per orbit ...

The actual orbital decay is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that. Hubble only loses 1 or 2 nautical miles per year, not per day or per orbit.

 

[sts60]

Patting yourself on the back. Yeah, that'll improve your standing in the world.

As I pointed out, irritating the grown-ups into paying attention is just part of the trolling. My next scheduled time to give him attention is my semiannual inquiry as to how many spacecraft the Nassikas "thruster" has actually provided, you know, thrust.

Say Malbec, never had that dream that you wanted to work for NASA?...

I doubt it. It takes work, and that includes working for a contractor as does yrs. trly.

Not wanting this to read like an attack, but given how he treats joke posts as serious, and talks about getting people going, I think he believes several posts are more emotionally charged,and less mildly bemused, than I seem to read them.

Which would be rather trollish, if he did think tempers were raised, rather than geeks finding the actual science and being happy to revel in how awesome an achievement Hubble really is...

After interacting with them for years, I don't find space-related conspiracists, hoax believers, and trolls to be particularly irritating. I find them amusing. They are almost invariably full of themselves in inverse proportion to their understanding of what they're talking about. This often leads to a divide-by-zero error.

 

[Daniel]

Do you have a point? Besides telling us the Japanese want to use some fancy-pants fireworks?

I'm sorry, I thought it was "Stamp On The Forehead" obvious. Can somebody please explain what the implications are...? Besides you can't TRUST Jack Squat you merely SEE in the sky?

Thanks

It's a good thing "OBSERVE a Phenomenon" is merely the First Step in the "Scientific Method"; otherwise, you may have Pseudo-Science Priests coming to "Scientific Conclusions" based merely on OBSERVATIONS!!

Oh I forgot, we have a Whole Slew of those...paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental', astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology.



regards

 

[Daniel]

The actual orbital decay is about two orders of magnitude smaller than that. Hubble only loses 1 or 2 nautical miles per year, not per day or per orbit.

1. Yea right (LOL). Two Orders of Magnitude Smaller than 1/16 of a Mile!!!

2. Begging the Question (Fallacy) x 3: "orbit", "Space" aka: Vacuum, And "Hubble" ---heck, the HST Deputy Missions Operation Manager Mike Myslinski nasa has never seen it in 25 Years (LOL)-- www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eEI7uKgSgA


regards

 

[Dash80]

I'm sorry, I thought it was "Stamp On The Forehead" obvious. Can somebody please explain what the implications are...? Besides you can't TRUST Jack Squat you merely SEE in the sky?

Thanks

It's a good thing "OBSERVE a Phenomenon" is merely the First Step in the "Scientific Method"; otherwise, you may have Pseudo-Science Priests coming to "Scientific Conclusions" based merely on OBSERVATIONS!!

Oh I forgot, we have a Whole Slew of those...paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental', astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology.



regards

What is it with you CTers and posting complete gibberish?

 

[AdamSK]

1. Yea right (LOL). Two Orders of Magnitude Smaller than 1/16 of a Mile!!!

Yes. Would you like to provide evidence that the drag would have to be significantly higher than this?

 

[MikeG]

.......gibberish trimmed........
Trillions of Dollars for a scrap book of "Photo-Shopped/Doctored" Pictures.......

1969 they went to the moon. Photoshop was developed in 1988.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm sorry, I thought it was "Stamp On The Forehead" obvious. Can somebody please explain what the implications are...? Besides you can't TRUST Jack Squat you merely SEE in the sky?

Thanks

It's a good thing "OBSERVE a Phenomenon" is merely the First Step in the "Scientific Method"; otherwise, you may have Pseudo-Science Priests coming to "Scientific Conclusions" based merely on OBSERVATIONS!!

Oh I forgot, we have a Whole Slew of those...paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental', astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology.



regards

I can't tell, but are you saying there are no stars?

 

[NoahFence]

So you've stepped into Malbec shoes eh? Might help to read the thread.

Oh and Malbec's style is to constantly tell everyone how smart he is then contradict himself by posting a booboo.

Are you going to do the same?

lol

Malbec or Kyloon? It's so hard to tell them apart.

 

[NoahFence]

Did you know there are Company's that can project artificial STARS/Planets in the sky??

Did you know that these companies have been in Kahuts with 'nasa' for DECADES??

How hard would you suspect it would be to project an ISS (or anything else for that matter...ON SCHEDULE)??


regards

For every human, everywhere?

Would they be prepared to project that say, 10 miles south of the North Pole somewhere in Nunavut?

 

[Tale]

Yes. Would you like to provide evidence that the drag would have to be significantly higher than this?

Dude, Adam. He doesn't believe in vacuum.

So at least it's consistent with his view.

 

[NoahFence]

Neither of those are projections. They use actual satellites.

LOL!!

His proof that satellites are fake is a Japanese company that's using satellites.

Do these people ever have a light bulb moment?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

1969 they went to the moon. Photoshop was developed in 1988.

Wow, they kept Photoshop under wraps for nearly 20 years, just so no one would know the moon landing was faked? That's some commitment.

 

[Garrison]

How is something doubly obvious ?
That apart , on what possible grounds -- evidence would be too much -- do you think RB is a Troll , as you put it ?
Nobody has tried to answer my question sensibly because nobody can say with authority that they have ever seen Hubble .Even the SOFIA member admits they have never seen Hubble " in situ"
It might look a simple matter and it might seem to be ludicrous to MS thinkers , but nobody has yet proved RB misguided -- let alone plain wrong .
Just waffle and unconnected ridicule -- as expected from a chat site .

So the poster who pointed out you can actually see the Hubble in orbit if you make the effort was irrelevant?

 

[Hans]

Wow, they kept Photoshop under wraps for nearly 20 years, just so no one would know the moon landing was faked? That's some commitment.

I wonder what computer they had that could handle the graphics....lol

 

[NoahFence]

One of them isn't particularly bright the other is less so.

Probably in the magnitude 50-60 range?

Visible only with a space-based telescope....