• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Captain_Swoop said:
When I was on Frigates in the 80s the Fire Control for the 4.5 inch turret used essentially the same hardware as WW2. We had an Admiralty Fire Control Table in the Plot Room to give Solutions for low angle fire. It's design was of 1940s vintage.
High angle AA fire was a different control system of 1950s vintage with later electronics being largely automatic.
Click to expand...

Wasn't CACS in place in the 80s, or was that only on certain Frigates?
In fact, that probably didn't actually handle fire control...so I suppose it's a moot point.
 
Link to the manual for the actual 'computer' Admiralty Range Clock.
One of the finest electro mechanical devices ever built:)
 
smartcooky said:
1969, the future of land transport was the Hovercraft. The SRN4 began commercial service in August 1968, running a passenger and car ferry service between Dover and Boulogne. It even featured in a James Bond film in 1971 ("Diamonds Are Forever"). It was quick too; 35 minutes on that trip and six trips per day. The future looked bright.

So, where are they all now? Sure there are a few still filling niche roles, but the prospect of seeing big Transatlantic and Transpacific hovercraft carrying passengers and freight around the world is just a lost dream.
Click to expand...

it's a good example, thanks. I might use it on a series of videos I plan to do in debunking Moon Landing CTs. I don´t think there is any good enough in my own language. And CTs exist all around the world.

Moon Landing CTs in my country however often don't stray too far from the usual "why the flag is waving", "no stars!", "van Allen belts are ultra deadly", "no PS4 in 1960, so how could they land there"???


Then of course, this is a third world country and there are rural areas of the country where people lack even a basic education. I think I already posted in this thread a video from the poorest state in my country, from an area right next to a rocket launch base, where people never heard about the Moon Landings and some say you can´t land on the moon because it's round and has no door, or because Saint George and the Dragon live there, etc :rolleyes:
 
sts60 said:
Hahahaha! Troll, I'll play again.
Click to expand...

I think I should take some medicine to calm myself and STOP fighting Conspiracy Theorists until I am retired (in some decades).

I mean... how much time do I lose replying to the buffoons just to have them not read a SINGLE LINE nor REPLY to what we wrote?

I clearly WROTE that the Lunar Module was launched INSIDE a rocket. It never flew in an atmosphere so it could be any shape. "Flying" is not even a word appropriate for it as well for any other spacecraft on space.

Gee, Hubble and ISS are weird shapes and no wings! They are fake! :rolleyes:


But this CTist clearly ignored everything. He didn´t reply to any of that. Aren´t we losing our precious time?


International Skeptics should have mods deleting posts from CTists that troll like that, without bothering to reply anything.
 
JayUtah said:
And you can easily tell where it's broken, when it breaks. "See those two pieces of cable? They're supposed to be a single piece."



I had a fun time putting the wingtips back on a KC-135 that was being prepared for display. The aileron controls are just cables, pulleys, and bell cranks that any farmer would find familiar from his own equipment. The rudder and yaw damper controls are ingenious -- the PCU summing and input levers are direct descendants of the piston valve gears on steam locomotives, whose dimensions and motions were laid out on graph paper according to a technique engineers today would find quaint yet elegantly satisfying.

I've also sat in Howard Hughes' seat on the Spruce Goose. The actual flight controls and instruments are dirt simple. But the pilot-facing panel of the central console is all detailed controls for the then-revolutionary hydraulic system.

Out at the old Wendover air force base there's the airplane from the movie Con Air. I love taking people out there for two reasons: it uses the same circuit breakers as the LM, so I can give them an object lesson in how they're vulnerable to damage when they're open; and the cockpit is largely gutted, so the cable runs are fully exposed. It boggles people's minds to see literal cables and pulleys connected to flight controls.

And on the B-17, on which I've also flown, the cable runs are overhead and fully exposed, at the two o'clock and ten o'clock positions as you face along the plane's long axis. That makes them easy to service, to be sure, but the waist gunners had to take care not to grab them for balance.

Don't knock the simple ways. The simple ways work best.
Click to expand...

I once read about how Jiro Horikoshi solved a control issue in an early A6M prototype by changing the diameter of the elevator cable, and therefore its elasticity, resulting in a far more positive and precise feel for the pilot.
 
And did I call it, or what?

Foster Zygote said:
They see layers of shiny metal "foil" on the outside, and it's wrinkly. They think that this is supposed to be self-evidently ridiculous because if they designed a spacecraft it sure as hell wouldn't be made of wrinkly foil.
Click to expand...

Kyoon said:
otherwise cluttered exterior that should be TIDY (similar a fighter jet, hi-tech medical apparatus)
Click to expand...
 
Kyoon said:
Sorry, I meant that was not my claim that sts60 quoted, "we can't see Jupiter from Earth".
Click to expand...

Let's see
The process was completed 20 years later, with the the first "evidence" for Jupiter, using the NASA Voyager 1 "spacecraft", January 1979.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

This is what you said. It is perfectly clear that you think that the only evidence for Jupiter is from Voyager 1. You claimed the only evidence that Jupiter exists was from Voyager 1.

You are a liar. You were caught in a lie and are no trying to claim you didn't say what you did.

The only problem is that you lied and it's right there for everyone to see. Liar. Do you like being a liar? You're lying about other things so why do you take exception to this lie? Is there a number of lies you think is to many? What is that number?
 
Craig4 said:
Let's see


This is what you said. It is perfectly clear that you think that the only evidence for Jupiter is from Voyager 1. You claimed the only evidence that Jupiter exists was from Voyager 1.

You are a liar. You were caught in a lie and are no trying to claim you didn't say what you did.

The only problem is that you lied and it's right there for everyone to see. Liar. Do you like being a liar? You're lying about other things so why do you take exception to this lie? Is there a number of lies you think is to many? What is that number?
Click to expand...
The problem with lying is that you have to remember what you lied about, and how.

CT-ists have a problem with that, even when they write them down, for some reason...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom