pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Please, no false modesty Pap. You and Turkish are the TSW Kings of Sneer, belittling and putting down anything that takes your fancy but rarely saying anything positive. I play a much more modest role of sneering at the Kings of sneer, I see it as a public service role. Well it's obviously an honour to be lumped in with Turkish. Loads of people know who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 It's about where they claim to be. They are supposedly in the early stages of their return trip home. I must say, as much as I've enjoyed this thread, with the exception of Whitey G, I'm getting an insult in almost every post. I could spend hours researching additional stuff on this topic, but there's little point. Cheers to those who've participated in the debate in good spirit. Cheers also to those who were so creative and persistent with their abuse. Worst case scenario for me? I might come out of this looking like a gullible nutter. Better than some of the other outcomes. The Moon is approximately a quarter the size of Earth - enough said really. Was the Sun behind the Moon or the Earth and where are the windows are on the command module? These are the things you need to be asking yourself You never commented on the article about Jodrell Bank which I would have hoped would have set your mind at rest that Apollo did happen the way it is generally understood to have happened. Also is it just coincidence that both your moniker and that of Jarrah White are suggestive that your taking the general populace for a bunch of gullible prannets or is there a conspiracy here to investigate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Well, it's funny Horley. We will never prove that JFK was assassinated through a conspiracy, but it probably happened that way (acknowledged by the last US group to investigate it). We could have the evidence to shut me up the next time a suitable opportunity to find the sites with the VLT. They've had six years. The LRO is orbiting the moon right now. Why don't we have a live feed of that? I can check out the Earth from the ISS at any time. You speak about Jodrell Bank as if its validation proves outright that the Apollo landings happened:- In the nineties, David Percy contacted Jodrell Bank Observatory technician Robert Pitchard. He stated that they too only tracked Apollo when it was close to the moon, not the trip there and back: “The Moon probes were observed with a 50ft radio telescope which at the frequency used (2300MHz) had a beam width of 5/8ths degrees In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up signals from up to about 1,000 miles above the moon’s surface, although small corrections had to be made to pointing as the probes orbited the Moon. Voice signals (of good quality) were received from both the orbiting spacecraft and the Lunar Lander but television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. As we were not actively involved in the tracking of these spacecraft, we did not track them after they had left the Moon. And with regard to Apollo 10, I have no details of any observations, after all this time – the reason escapes me.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 The Jodrell Bank point is a good one, indeed 30 seconds worth of Googleing shows that there is in fact (contrary what has been claimed on here) ample scientific evidence - from respectable international sources - to confirm the reality of the Apollo moon landings. From the much derided, but often useful, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings So there you have it - a small mountain of written, oral, photographic, scientific, and hard physical evidence that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that mankind did walk upon the surface of the Moon. Like all important history it is undeniable that new Apollo evidence is still to be found, and new interpretations of that are still to be made, one suspects this process will continue long after all of us are dead. The one thing I suspect these generations of future historians won't be writing however is that the Apollo Programme was a huge conspiracy to dupe Humanity. This notion is not only a disgraceful insult to those who actually did this wonderful thing, it is also inherently preposterous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 This notion is not only a disgraceful insult to those who actually did this wonderful thing, it is also inherently preposterous. Love your veneration of these wonderful people and achievement. Dr Werner Von Braun has a very interesting CV. Designed the V-2, so he has a lot of form in getting rockets somewhere without a bloke in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint si Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/collections/moon_landing_conspiracy_theories A reputable broadcaster? Or a mere puppet for our totalitarian masters. You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Love your veneration of these wonderful people and achievement. Dr Werner Von Braun has a very interesting CV. Designed the V-2, so he has a lot of form in getting rockets somewhere without a bloke in them. I think they call this kind of thing 'guilt by association' and must sensible people don't give it much house room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 I think they call this kind of thing 'guilt by association' and must sensible people don't give it much house room Another way to look at it is the 8,000 or so people V-2's killed in the UK, or the 12,000 forced labourers who died making them contributed to the success you're so proud of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 The one thing I suspect these generations of future historians won't be writing however is that the Apollo Programme was a huge conspiracy to dupe Humanity. Unlike historians today looking back 2,000 years or so at the reasons behind the advent of religions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Another way to look at it is the 8,000 or so people V-2's killed in the UK, or the 12,000 forced labourers who died making them contributed to the success you're so proud of. So you don't want to discuss the evidence anymore than and you feel that this transparent attempt to change the subject is likely to get you off the hook? And all this from a man who had the nerve to accuse me of trying to "smear" him not so long ago ....... wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 So you don't want to discuss the evidence anymore than and you feel that this transparent attempt to change the subject is likely to get you off the hook? And all this from a man who had the nerve to accuse me of trying to "smear" him not so long ago ....... wow! I'm not on any hook. Contrary to you what you probably believe, despite a little weary moment last night after seeing Horley start to play the ball instead of the man, I feel it has been a good thread. I have learned lots about the way people choose to debate, and irrespective of whether Apollo landed there or not, we've seen other matters resolved nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 I feel you pain. You have of course made a utter fool of yourself on here and my advice to you is you should log off now, chill out, and accept that it is better to shut up and have people think you are a fool - rather than open you mouth and confirm it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 I too am but a fool and will remain so like many in the world. That is until the shuttle service to the moon commences and holidays and long weekends are par for the course. Still a non believer.... Blue Moon keeps ringing in my ears.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 I feel you pain. You have of course made a utter fool of yourself on here and my advice to you is you should log off now, chill out, and accept that it is better to shut up and have people think you are a fool - rather than open you mouth and confirm it. Equally that applies to c##ts. How's your gentleman image holding up, Charlie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Equally that applies to c##ts. How's your gentleman image holding up, Charlie? Classy, but not out of character. Charlie is right by the way, though too late with the warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Classy, but not out of character. Charlie is right by the way, though too late with the warning. Hmm, and you'd have no bias in that assessment, eh sir? I agree with you on this being in my character, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 pap gets all punchy if no one agrees with him... its what all his type are like..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 pap gets all punchy if no one agrees with him... its what all his type are like..... Dude, do me a wee favour. Have a quick trawl through this thread. Tell me where I've insulted anyone who has not given it first. Then at least give me that much respect. Buctootim has known the rules for some time. You play nice, and I play nice. I don't think that is out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 Dude, do me a wee favour. Have a quick trawl through this thread. Tell me where I've insulted anyone who has not given it first. Then at least give me that much respect. Buctootim has known the rules for some time. You play nice, and I play nice. I don't think that is out of order. im messing ffs I could not care less..just read the last 3-5 posts.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 17 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 17 December, 2012 The Moon is approximately a quarter the size of Earth - enough said really. Was the Sun behind the Moon or the Earth and where are the windows are on the command module? I wonder if on this point, you're ignoring other shots of the Earth apparently taken from half-way to the moon. In these shots, the Earth is represented as a remote object which doesn't manage to fill the viewport. In the shot I am talking about, blue light is coming through all the windows and filling all of the window, just after leaving the moon. If the astronauts are on record as saying they cannot see the sun,and that they cannot see the moon, that they've just left lunar orbit, then the Earth should be incapable of producing uniform blue light through those windows. If it isn't large enough to fill the window halfway to the moon, then what is the source of that blue, Earth-like glow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 17 December, 2012 Share Posted 17 December, 2012 I wonder if on this point, you're ignoring other shots of the Earth apparently taken from half-way to the moon. In these shots, the Earth is represented as a remote object which doesn't manage to fill the viewport. In the shot I am talking about, blue light is coming through all the windows and filling all of the window, just after leaving the moon. If the astronauts are on record as saying they cannot see the sun,and that they cannot see the moon, that they've just left lunar orbit, then the Earth should be incapable of producing uniform blue light through those windows. If it isn't large enough to fill the window halfway to the moon, then what is the source of that blue, Earth-like glow? As you appear to accept that the Apollo missions orbited the Moon given the radio astromical records (your comment re: Jodrell Bank) then this whole matter seems academic. Why lie about a blue light and did they even say what was causing it? But for the sake of good order take a look at the Moon in the night sky next time it is full and see how much light it gives off then consider what it would be like 4 times over without the diffusion of light you get in Earth's atmosphere. Surely its not a giant leap (can you see what I did there), if you do accept that they went to the Moon, that they actually landed there - 9 dry runs to the Moon without landing?! Even for a good hoax that seems a bit excessive. I not aware of one established person from the scientific community that is a conspiracist - they mostly seem to be journos and fantascists like Jarrah White - so look at the credentials for these people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 (edited) As you appear to accept that the Apollo missions orbited the Moon given the radio astromical records (your comment re: Jodrell Bank) then this whole matter seems academic. Why lie about a blue light and did they even say what was causing it? But for the sake of good order take a look at the Moon in the night sky next time it is full and see how much light it gives off then consider what it would be like 4 times over without the diffusion of light you get in Earth's atmosphere. Surely its not a giant leap (can you see what I did there), if you do accept that they went to the Moon, that they actually landed there - 9 dry runs to the Moon without landing?! Even for a good hoax that seems a bit excessive. I not aware of one established person from the scientific community that is a conspiracist - they mostly seem to be journos and fantascists like Jarrah White - so look at the credentials for these people? No-one is lying about a blue light. The following points aren't congruent. 1) Astronauts cannot see the moon 2) Astronauts cannot see the sun 3) Craft 72 hours into mission 4) Loads of blue light coming through the panels ( literally nothing else ) 5) Light appears to be coming through side facing portals. I think we can both agree that by any definition, visible means observable through a window. Before we go any further, where do you think that light is coming from? [video=youtube;-czSAgTtQmk] All done within about 2mins of video starting. Edited 18 December, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Jim Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 The undeniable proof that man (woman, teddybear and a couple of robotic pets) have been to the moon ......... There's no multiple light sources and you can see the stars in the picture.......close the thread, the conspiracies have been busted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 The undeniable proof that man (woman, teddybear and a couple of robotic pets) have been to the moon ......... There's no multiple light sources and you can see the stars in the picture.......close the thread, the conspiracies have been busted! The mechanism for transit to Button Moon has been tried and tested for years. You simply follow Mr. Spoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 The important thing to remember is that even conspiracy fan-boy concedes that the film in question is indeed shot in space. His basic theory boils down to little more than the silly supposition that the Apollo Command Module is in low Earth orbit all the time with a photo of the (distant) Earth selotaped to the outside window. The 'suspicious' blue light in question seems entirely inconclusive and when he says "that little white dot could very well be the Moon as seen from Earth's orbit" this is a good example of his mindset as you could ask for. The "little white dot" appears to be a simple light reflection on a glass surface. Again, if the craft never left orbit for a whole week or more, than how come no one spotted this at the time? While Pap struggles to concoct a answer for these questions perhaps he might also remember to tell us how your hero explainers the low gravity/vacuum conditions clearly depicted in all the Apollo moon 'set' film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Ah, yeah, but if I concoct an answer, as I did when you said it was impossible to put retroreflectors on the moon without a man ( "a job for human hands"' or alternatively, nascent Soviet robotics and know how ) it'll just be a theory, and I'll have no proof. Back to square one, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Oh I proved quite satisfactorily that the NASA Lunar reflectors could only have been set up correctly by Human hands. Now (just as with all the other evidence that does not fit in with your pet theory) you may not accept that, but as the entire forum well knows by now you are not exactly the poster boy of rationality on here ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 How is this still going?! Keep on in there pap; love the determination amidst some poorly executed (yet somehow extremely angry) responses. And why is Charlie still talking in the third person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20765318 Two Nasa satellites monitoring the Moon have been deliberately crashed onto the surface. The spacecraft - named Ebb and Flow - had spent a year orbiting the moon, measuring its gravity field to learn more about the interior. Running low on fuel, Nasa engineers decided to crash the spacecraft into a mountain. James Kelly reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 And why is Charlie still talking in the third person?[/QUOTE] This is because I am in fact Prince Charles and I always employ the 'Royal We'. If I can keep this fred going for just a few years longer Pap might even forget to expose how me and my old dad murdered the wife. I'm sure we can all agree that would be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 The Kraken approves of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Oh I proved quite satisfactorily that the NASA Lunar reflectors could only have been set up correctly by Human hands. Now (just as with all the other evidence that does not fit in with your pet theory) you may not accept that, but as the entire forum well knows by now you are not exactly the poster boy of rationality on here ...... Yeah, but the basis of your proof is 1) pictures you've seen. 2) your research into the Apollo missions Besides, you only got specific after I told you about the Russian retroflectors. Others told me I simply didn't understand 1960s robotics (I don't, in truth). I could make a similar case for unicorns being real on similar evidence. I've seen pictures. Hell, I've even seen video. The Tom Cruise film "Legend" has one in it. It's very convincing. So why don't I believe in unicorns? Well, I've never seen one for a start, and I have never met anyone who has. Same thing goes for those NASA retroreflectors, except there are only a handful of men who can confirm it. You really are placing a lot of stock in those retroreflectors being exactly as described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 My one and only entry. If any single person claims to support the Faked Moon Landings Conspiracy, THEN they are at the same time calling James Burke AND more Importantly Sir Patrick Moore Liars/Co-Conspriators or at worse accusing them of being negligent. I am sorry but ANYONE who calls Sir Patrick Moore anything other than a genius for his work in Educating us about Space is committing a more heinous crime than Hypo. Ban Pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 How is this still going?! Keep on in there pap; love the determination amidst some poorly executed (yet somehow extremely angry) responses. And why is Charlie still talking in the third person? I almost gave up. I have no hope of winning against such insurmountable odds. Pipe-hittin' buctootim is in the mix, once again breaking his vow to never engage with me again. These threads tend to turn angry pretty quickly, so once again, props to those who have played nice. Preliminary analysis of the anger indicates 33% opportunist bullying ( "hey pap has really dug himself into a hole here. Let's pour lava on the c##t" ), 33% anger because a vicarious achievement is being questioned. The rest of it is split between skipping over an awkward point or tacit Nazi rocket scientist worship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 My one and only entry. If any single person claims to support the Faked Moon Landings Conspiracy, THEN they are at the same time calling James Burke AND more Importantly Sir Patrick Moore Liars/Co-Conspriators or at worse accusing them of being negligent. I am sorry but ANYONE who calls Sir Patrick Moore anything other than a genius for his work in Educating us about Space is committing a more heinous crime than Hypo. Ban Pap Ooh. This is the first actual call for a ban. Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Yeah, but the basis of your proof is 1) pictures you've seen. 2) your research into the Apollo missions Besides, you only got specific after I told you about the Russian retroflectors. Others told me I simply didn't understand 1960s robotics (I don't, in truth). I could make a similar case for unicorns being real on similar evidence. I've seen pictures. Hell, I've even seen video. The Tom Cruise film "Legend" has one in it. It's very convincing. So why don't I believe in unicorns? Well, I've never seen one for a start, and I have never met anyone who has. Same thing goes for those NASA retroreflectors, except there are only a handful of men who can confirm it. You really are placing a lot of stock in those retroreflectors being exactly as described. If there really is anyone on here bored enough to want to revisited the tiresome 'reflector question' they need only scroll back a few pages and see for themselves. I have nothing more to add on that and as far as I'm concerned that matter is closed. A more open question is just how NASA managed to recreate so brilliantly the Moons evident low gravity and zero atmospheric conditions, either in a studio or out in the open desert for that matter. I say this is for all intents and purposes a practical impossibility, but if you have a cogent argument then don't be shy present it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 (edited) Interestingly, Charlie - my main man Jarrah White, the fellow ultimately responsible for your comprehensive retroreflector defeat (and highly amusing climbdown), uses the Mythbusters footage to show how the low grav was accomplished. See. The crafty buggers did a wire-walk and a slow-motion walk. Neither was a decent approximation of 1/6 gravity. Both looked off. They never did an experiment which combined the slow-motion and wire techniques. Mr White slowed down the wire footage and guess what? Corresponds almost exactly with the low grav footage. Edited 18 December, 2012 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 But there is no evidence of any wires, or that the film speed has been tampered with. So are you really asking this forum to believe that the film - film I will remind you that conclusivly shows no sustained dust cloud forming behind the LRV - was all done with wires? Did NASA suspend a billion moondust particles on a mass of tiny wires no one can see perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I have it! NASA watered down the set beforehand filming so no dustclould could form ......... But there's no sign of any mud on the tyres either ....bugger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Did they film it all underwater? Nah, too silly for even PAP to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Maybe they made a top secret 'vomit comet' aircraft so huge you could set up a film studio inside it? Even more silly methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 Someone help be out here I'm really struggling to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 But there is no evidence of any wires, or that the film speed has been tampered with. So are you really asking this forum to believe that the film - film I will remind you that conclusivly shows no sustained dust cloud forming behind the LRV - was all done with wires? Did NASA suspend a billion moondust particles on a mass of tiny wires no one can see perhaps? There is footage of light flashing above the astronauts. This could be the flash off the antenna, or it could be a wire. There is also footage that could be interpreted as an astronaut being yanked up by a wire. This is exactly how the retroreflector argument went down. You cry unfeasible, I show otherwise, then you want specific proof. On your final point re: feasibility of dust clouds. Once again you are making some large assumptions based on what you believe to be true. How do you know what material that even is? Can you honestly tell me that there is no other material in the world that would behave in that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 So there we have it, you have no explanation at all for the non existence of any sustained dustclould when one would surely have been generated in the situation depicted - but only if this film been shot on Earth that is. Ignoring all the other evidence - and god knows there's plenty of it - the Apollo LRV film is incontrovertible proof that man not only visited the Moon - he even drove a bloody car on it! I called you a 'Horses Ass' on here a while ago - is there anyone left who disagrees with that assessment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 You're dodging every question on feasibility, Charlie. To save you a lot of time and trouble, I'm probably not going to be in a position to provide any of the proof. Most of the physical evidence is 240K miles away and travel is impractical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 My reply to the bullsh1t above: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 So there we have it, you have no explanation at all for the non existence of any sustained dustclould when one would surely have been generated in the situation depicted - but only if this film been shot on Earth that is. Ignoring all the other evidence - and god knows there's plenty of it - the Apollo LRV film is incontrovertible proof that man not only visited the Moon - he even drove a bloody car on it! I called you a 'Horses Ass' on here a while ago - is there anyone left who disagrees with that assessment? Different material than dust, Charlie. You just ignored it, mate. Lot of that about atm. I think I've answered your every question. Btw, is getting the rest of the forum to call me a horse's ass your victory condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 My reply to the bullsh1t above: Predicated on the assumption that the material is what you think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 18 December, 2012 Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I see a very elegant demonstartion of moondust reacting as it would in a low gravity/vacuum environment. I expect everyone else on here sees the same because this is obviously true. You on the other hand see 5000 tons of finely ground Uranium particles so massively heavy they refuse to form a cloud I take it. About as convincing a argument as all the other bullsh1t you have posted on here ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 18 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 18 December, 2012 I see a very elegant demonstartion of moondust reacting as it would in a low gravity/vacuum environment. I expect everyone else on here sees the same because this is obviously true. You on the other hand see 5000 tons of finely ground Uranium particles so massively heavy they refuse to form a cloud I take it. About as convincing a argument as all the other bullsh1t you have posted on here ...... Dry beach sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now