Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenomenon and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in our lifetime, and if the world's governments already know something. I've watched the first several episodes of this show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on real investigations in the US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 1950s.
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenomenon and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in
our lifetime, and if the world's governments already know something.
I've watched the first several episodes of this show, and it's at
least midly interesting as it's based on real investigations in the
US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 1950s.
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenomenon and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in our lifetime, and if the world's governments already know something. I've watched the first several episodes of this show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on real investigations in the US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 1950s.
There was a movie back in the 70's with a similar name/theme. I remember being very excited to see it (at a drive-in back then). I'll have to check out the TV show, assuming you're inferring that's its good.
"Operation Blue Book" or "Project Blue Book"??
i remember a show of that or very similar name back in the '70s... i don't think it was "Project UFO" but it might have been... one of the reviewers askes about it being known as "Project Blue Book" and that is listed as an alternative title... i certainly remember a show by that name, though...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077065/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_U.F.O.
i do not recognize the title screen shot on wikipedia, though... it doesn't look familiar but the episodes seem to be... the showing times seem to be about how i remember, too, because it was a late evening show...
while searching, i also found this which is nice...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0y_pNxamlHSI_G2mHfDhLmxgAUdLEd60
or, for long line breakage, this tiny url...
https://tinyurl.com/w2vq3b5
Wow, that's an old series. I remember watching it when I was a kid.
Wow, that's an old series. I remember watching it when I was a kid.
No, it's not old, season 1 just started in January 2019..
There was a movie back in the 70's with a similar name/theme. I remember
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenome s show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on real investigat
Nightfox
Re: Operation Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to All on Wed Jan 01 2020 03:33 pm
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenomenon and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in our lifetime, and if the world's governments already know something. I've watched the first several episodes of this show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on real investigations in the US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 1950s.
There was a movie back in the 70's with a similar name/theme. I remember bei
digital man
This Is Spinal Tap quote #28:
We've got Armadillos in our trousers. It's really quite frightening.
Norco, CA WX: 48.4øF, 91.0% humidity, 1 mph SW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
I watched the pilot episode and maybe another 2 episodes, and couldn't get into it. It seemed too obvious there was a conspiracy going on right from the get go, almost like it was like the wrost kept secret in the higher government circles. The pilot was supposed to be the skeptic, and right off I got the impression he's being told not to be as helpful.
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenomenon
and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in our lifetime, and if >he world's governments already know something. I've watched the first several >pisodes of this show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on real
investigations in the US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 1950s.
I remember a TV show called "(something) Blue Book" back in the 1970's. It sounds like maybe it was based off of, or related to, a movie that was out back then (based on DM's post). I watched it a couple of times but I was a young child and, as my father did not believe in UFOs, it was not tuned into on our TV at home much. :)
I have heard of the new show. Where is it available?
I had a feeling that a government conspiracy/cover-up is probably the whole point of the show. The US government has been quiet on the UFO issue, but
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to Moondog on Thu Jan 02 2020 03:18 pm
I had a feeling that a government conspiracy/cover-up is probably the who point of the show. The US government has been quiet on the UFO issue, bu
The assasination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy. Not UFO's. We nee to get our priorities straight. ;-)
Re: Operation Blue Book TV sh
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Thu Jan 02 2020 03:06 pm
I watched the pilot episode and maybe another 2 episodes, and couldn't into it. It seemed too obvious there was a conspiracy going on right fr the get go, almost like it was like the wrost kept secret in the higher government circles. The pilot was supposed to be the skeptic, and right off I got the impression he's being told not to be as helpful.
I had a feeling that a government conspiracy/cover-up is probably the whole as discovered, there was initially a story run in the news that the US gover st state that from the start?
Nightfox
Does anyone watch this show? I've always been interested in the UFO phenom >and am curious if we'll ever see extraterrestrial life in our lifetime, and >he world's governments already know something. I've watched the first seve >pisodes of this show, and it's at least midly interesting as it's based on >investigations in the US government's Project Blue Book starting in the 195
I remember a TV show called "(something) Blue Book" back in the 1970's. It sounds like maybe it was based off of, or related to, a movie that was out back then (based on DM's post). I watched it a couple of times but I was a young child and, as my father did not believe in UFOs, it was not tuned
into on our TV at home much. :)
I have heard of the new show. Where is it available?
* SLMR 2.1a * # of Vulcans needed to replace a bulb? Precisely 1.000
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to Moondog on Thu Jan 02 2020 03:18 pm
I had a feeling that a government conspiracy/cover-up is probably the who point of the show. The US government has been quiet on the UFO issue, bu
The assasination of President Kennedy was a conspiracy. Not UFO's. We nee
HusTler@ havens.synchro.net
I have no problem with conspiracy / coverup being part of the plot. don't make it so obvious, like a poorly kept joke.
It's produced by the History Channel (I guess they're just called "History" the
e days). I've seen Amazon Prime stream it. I don't have cable TV, but I suppo
e it's probably on the History Channel if you have cable.
I tend to think the universe is so huge that I have a hard time believing we're
the only intelligent life out there. I also don't think we know all there is t
know about physics, and it might be possible that there is a way to travel thro
ugh the universe that we haven't discovered yet.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Moondog to Nightfox on Fri Jan 03 2020 02:39 pm
I have no problem with conspiracy / coverup being part of the plot. don make it so obvious, like a poorly kept joke.
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
I think the odds are that there is other life out there. There may even be good odds that some forms of it are intelligent. On the other hand, it seems like most of these exo-planets they've been finding are either not in the habitable zones or, if they are, lack other features that would make complex life a likelihood.
I do. I used to watch History all the time when it was actually about history. I need to check the schedule and see if/when it is on!
Remember when History Channel had great shows about "history"? I was willing to pay for it back then. You what the have on now? Pawn Stars and American Pickers. And the shows run all day. Sad..very sad.
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
On 01-03-20 22:15, Nightfox wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
It seems like they've been discovering a lot of them lately though.
I've heard some are in the habitable zone for their solar system. And
as big as the universe is, I'm betting there are a lot more out there
we haven't seen yet.
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 03 2020 09:58 pm
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
I don't think there's much reason to believe it was faked. That's one of th
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sat Jan 04 2020 12:34 pm
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo 11 (2019 documentary. (Great Movie) which part was fake? All of it? What authority claims it was fake? The UFO guys?
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
I'm also sure that if we do something stupid and make ourselves extinct, some other intelligent species will emerge to take our place in several million years time. :)
I don't think there's much reason to believe it was faked. That's one
of th
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we have about the entire situation.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo 11 (2019) documentary. (Great Movie) which part was fake? All of it? What authority claims it was fake? The UFO guys?
like i said before, i saw that shit at the air and space museum in Dc and no fucking way did people wear that shit in outerspace. you could poke your finger through that shit.
On 01-04-20 21:11, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
@VIA: VERT/DIGDIST
Re: Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Sun Jan 05 2020 01:46 pm
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
I think that's a distinct possibility. The Fermi paradox asks that question, and I've heard of a few theories. It could be that there
were advanced civilizations on other planets that evolved and died off long ago. Perhaps others aren't space-faring yet or don't even have technology to be broadcasting radio waves, etc..
I'm also sure that if we do something stupid and make ourselves extinct, some other intelligent species will emerge to take our place in several million years time. :)
True. :)
On 01-04-20 21:24, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
There's plenty of information out there supporting the moon landing (though you'll probably find a way to say it's all lies or fake):
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: HusTler to Dumas Walker on Sat Jan 04 2020 08:09 am
Remember when History Channel had great shows about "history"? I was willing to pay for it back then. You what the have on now? Pawn Stars a American Pickers. And the shows run all day. Sad..very sad.
At least Project Blue Book is about something that happened in recent histor
Nightfox
I used to watch that "project blue book" show back in the day. I figured this now one was a reboot...
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo
11 (2019) documentary. (Great Movie) which part was fake? All of
it? What authority claims it was fake? The UFO guys?
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we have about the entire situation.
like i said before, i saw that shit at the air and space museum in Dc and no fucking way did people wear that shit in outerspace. you could poke your finger through that shit.
Vk3jed wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 01-04-20 21:24, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
There's plenty of information out there supporting the moon landing (though you'll probably find a way to say it's all lies or fake):
It has also been suggested that it would have been harder to fake
the moon landings, given all the details, than to have actually
done the real thing. This is given that you not only have to put
stuff on the Moon that is there - has been seen, and is used for
science experiments, but also the accuracy of movement in 1/6g
was correct (I have seen experiments done in the "vomit comet" to
compare movement in actual 1/6g to that fudged by means normally accessible to movie studios).
And then there's a number of third parties like radio amateurs
who tracked the mission, which means antennas pointing in the
right direction, as well as correct Doppler shift for where the
spacecraft was, no matter where in the world they were. There's
only one way that could have happened. :)
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
Vk3jed wrote to Nightfox <=-
On 01-03-20 22:15, Nightfox wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
It seems like they've been discovering a lot of them lately though.
I've heard some are in the habitable zone for their solar system. And
as big as the universe is, I'm betting there are a lot more out there
we haven't seen yet.
Yes, there's literally thousands of known exoplanets now, and
we've barely scratched the surface. There's such a diversity of
planets out there too. Surely, we're not alone. One thing that
seems to happen in this corner of the Universe is that things
tend to progress towards local complexity and order, which has
led to intelligent life. And there's some evidence to suggest
that there's more than one evolutionary road to intelligence -
some very different species such as octopus are also quite
intelligent.
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the
Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder
for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
Remember when History Channel had great shows about "history"? I was
willing to pay for it back then. You what the have on now? Pawn Stars and >Hu> American Pickers. And the shows run all day. Sad..very sad.
At least Project Blue Book is about something that happened in recent history..
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we >have about the entire situation.
I recommend seeing Apollo 11 (2019). You can DL it from my BBS.
Rampage wrote to HusTler <=-
it comes from conspiracy theorists and deniers... they say it was all
put on and faked on a movie set sound stage... their biggest argument stems from total ignorance as to why they cannot see stars in the moon landing pictures... ignorance is what drives these conspiracy
theorys...
HusTler wrote to mro <=-
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo 11 (2019) documentary. (Great Movie) which part was fake? All of it? What authority claims it was fake? The UFO guys?
HusTler wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
Remember when History Channel had great shows about "history"? I was willing to pay for it back then. You what the have on now? Pawn Stars
and American Pickers. And the shows run all day. Sad..very sad.
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we have about the entire situation.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Nightfox on Fri Jan 03 2020 09:58 pm
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
I don't think there's much reason to believe it was faked. That's one of th
to tell the world about that.
Nightfox
Re: Fake Landings
By: HusTler to mro on Sat Jan 04 2020 09:03 pm
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sat Jan 04 2020 12:34 pm
And I don't have a problem with a coverup being brought to light.
you sure seem quick to defend that fake moon landing.
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo 11 (2 documentary. (Great Movie) which part was fake? All of it? What authority claims it was fake? The UFO guys?
i dont know who the ufo guys are. there's just a lot of funny stuff happeni back then that makes no sense. there's a lot of information out there. there's a lot of stuff that nasa did that was strange.
like i said before, i saw that shit at the air and space museum in Dc and no fucking way did people wear that shit in outerspace. you could poke your fin through that shit.
On 01-04-20 21:24, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
There's plenty of information out there supporting the moon landing (though you'll probably find a way to say it's all lies or fake):
It has also been suggested that it would have been harder to fake the moon landings, given all the details, than to have actually done the real thing. This is given that you not only have to put stuff on the Moon that is there has been seen, and is used for science experiments, but also the accuracy of movement in 1/6g was correct (I have seen experiments done in the "vomit com to compare movement in actual 1/6g to that fudged by means normally accessib to movie studios).
And then there's a number of third parties like radio amateurs who tracked t mission, which means antennas pointing in the right direction, as well as correct Doppler shift for where the spacecraft was, no matter where in the world they were. There's only one way that could have happened. :)
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
... I'm going to make a prediction - it could go either way.
On 01-05-20 09:50, Gamgee wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
On 01-05-20 09:55, Gamgee wrote to Vk3jed <=-
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the
Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder
for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
Agreed. The number of planets/solar systems/galaxies that exist
is so vast that it's pretty much beyond comprehension. To think
that our one little planet is the ONLY one where conditions are
right for life is pretty naive. There are SURELY huge numbers of
other planets where there are life forms at various stages of intelligence/advancement. I'd go so far as to say that it's VERY
doubtful that we are even close to the most advanced.
There's other possible answers too, like that civilisations around our level are more than 200 light years apart - which means they wouldn't know of each other's existence. And another issue, that I haven't seen specifically mentioned is that because of the finite speed of light, the only civilisations that would hope to see would (now) be considerably more advanced than us, even if we detected them as being at approximately equivalent, because we're seeing them as they were years/centuries ago. A civilisation 1000 light years away would have advanced 1000 years beyond how we see them from Earth.
Of course, if FTL travel ever becomes feasible, then that will give a more accurate picture than any remote observation could. :)
And if we treat intelligent life as an emergent property of this Universe, then chances are other civilisations (at least in this galaxy) are at a stage comparable to our own. And therein lies the answer to Fermi's Paradox - we're not seeing other civilisations, because of a combination of:
1. Sheer distance - we're all far apart.
2. Relativity - signs of other civilisations haven't reached Earth yet, due to the finite speed of light.
Yep, each iteration of complex life on Earth after extinction events seems to have become more advanced. The extinction events are like hitting the reset button, allowing different species to become dominant.
It has also been suggested that it would have been harder to fake the moon landings, given all the details, than to have actually done the real thing. This is given that you not only have to put stuff on the Moon that is there - has been seen, and is used for science experiments, but also the accuracy of movement in 1/6g was correct (I have seen experiments done in the "vomit comet" to compare movement in actual 1/6g to that fudged by means normally accessible to movie studios).
And then there's a number of third parties like radio amateurs who tracked the mission, which means antennas pointing in the right direction, as well as correct Doppler shift for where the spacecraft was, no matter where in the world they were. There's only one way that could have happened. :)
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
I always thought the fact that we still don't know for sure means it was fake. MAYBE we got there in the 70s, but 69 was faked. When you have to
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation
orbits, solar flares, rate of descent and ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
We can't keep people alive on earth but we kept three guys alive in little
it comes from conspiracy theorists and deniers... they say it was all put on and faked on a movie set sound stage... their biggest argument stems from total ignorance as to why they cannot see stars in the moon landing pictures... ignorance is what drives these conspiracy theorys...
Mars landings and other space exploration vehicles out there. All those pictures are fake? All the data collected is made up? But if you DO
Where did this fake Moon Landings come from? I just watched Apollo
The Flat Earth Society.
fake. MAYBE we got there in the 70s, but 69 was faked. When you have to defend every single little detail with "facts" that are hard to believe, it seems fake.
I mean how hard would it be to gently float a mirror on to the surface to later be used for "scientific experiments" ?
Vk3jed wrote to Gamgee <=-
On 01-05-20 09:55, Gamgee wrote to Vk3jed <=-
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the
Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder
for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
Agreed. The number of planets/solar systems/galaxies that exist
is so vast that it's pretty much beyond comprehension. To think
that our one little planet is the ONLY one where conditions are
right for life is pretty naive. There are SURELY huge numbers of
other planets where there are life forms at various stages of intelligence/advancement. I'd go so far as to say that it's VERY
doubtful that we are even close to the most advanced.
Actually the law of averages would say that we're most probably
around the middle of the pack, in the absence of any other
information. :) There seems to be some level of synchronicity in
the Universe, especially in living things. For example, there's
several documented examples of people in different parts of the
world independently inventing the same thing.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Nightfox <=-
I always thought the fact that we still don't know for sure means
it was fake. MAYBE we got there in the 70s, but 69 was faked.
When you have to defend every single little detail with "facts"
that are hard to believe, it seems fake.
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly,
but we got through
radiation with tinfoil, and got everything right about gravity, gravitational pulls, orbits, solar flares, rate of descent and
ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
We can't keep people alive on earth but we kept three guys alive
in little suits with oxygen and food and water, let them split
up, kept one in orbit until the others landed, walked around,
planted a flag, then got back in their little tank and jetisoned
back up to the 3rd where they reconnected, crawled into yet
another tank, and rocketed through the extreme heat of earth
rentry safely landing in the ocean?
Not buying it.
There would be real video of this and real touch/feel evidence,
and by now, a constant camera monitoring the sites from a
satellite or something in orbit around said moon.
it comes from conspiracy theorists and deniers... they say it was all put on and faked on a movie set sound stage... their biggest argument stems from to ignorance as to why they cannot see stars in the moon landing pictures... ignorance is what drives these conspiracy theorys...
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Nightfox on Sat Jan 04 2020 21:54:17
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we have about the entire situation.
these are proven scientific facts? where are they documented, please...
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts >have about the entire situation.
LOL, I would not swear to it, but I can almost remember you making fun of someone a while back because they thought the Moon landing was fake. :)
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
there's no reason to belive it was faked if you dont look at the many facts we have about the entire situation.
Fact number 1: Buzz Aldrin will punch you.
I always thought the fact that we still don't know for sure means it was fak MAYBE we got there in the 70s, but 69 was faked. When you have to defend eve single little detail with "facts" that are hard to believe, it seems fake.
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with tinfoil, and got everything right about gravity, gravitational pulls, orbits solar flares, rate of descent and ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
We can't keep people alive on earth but we kept three guys alive in little suits with oxygen and food and water, let them split up, kept one in orbit until the others landed, walked around, planted a flag, then got back in the little tank and jetisoned back up to the 3rd where they reconnected, crawled into yet another tank, and rocketed through the extreme heat of earth rentry safely landing in the ocean?
Yep. Although we were able to make movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, I don think our level of special effects technology was good enough at the time to fake something like a moon landing.
Sometimes NASA has to compose a picture of a planet or something using multi photos from different positions because the camera just can't capture it all one shot. And some people think because of that, it's "fake".
MRO wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Zombie Mambo to Nightfox on Sun Jan 05 2020 11:50 am
I always thought the fact that we still don't know for sure means it was fak MAYBE we got there in the 70s, but 69 was faked. When you have to defend eve single little detail with "facts" that are hard to believe, it seems fake.
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with tinfoil, and got everything right about gravity, gravitational pulls, orbits solar flares, rate of descent and ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
We can't keep people alive on earth but we kept three guys alive in little suits with oxygen and food and water, let them split up, kept one in orbit until the others landed, walked around, planted a flag, then got back in the little tank and jetisoned back up to the 3rd where they reconnected, crawled into yet another tank, and rocketed through the extreme heat of earth rentry safely landing in the ocean?
it's something incredibly difficult that we probably cant even do
today. there's a lot of shit that doesnt make sense.
and like i said, i have been to the air and space museum and i've
seen that shit up close. you can look at the gear and
everything. then you can go see a real airplane. total
difference. now there are micro sized meterors and all kinds of
shit flying around in space at an estimated 22,500mph. one
little crum could have gone in the ship and out the other like a
hot knife through butter.
that is some fake shit. gold foil you can poke your finger
through kept them alive? not to mention made it all the way up
there and back? bullshit.
it's something incredibly difficult that we probably cant even do today. there's a lot of shit that doesnt make sense.
Re: Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Vk3jed to Nightfox on Sun Jan 05 2020 01:46 pm
So why isn't a similar process happening elsewhere in the Universe? I suspect it is, but the vast distances make it harder for us to meet our interstellar neighbours. :)
I think that's a distinct possibility. The Fermi paradox asks that question et or don't even have technology to be broadcasting radio waves, etc..
I'm also sure that if we do something stupid and make ourselves extinct some other intelligent species will emerge to take our place in several million years time. :)
True. :)
Nightfox
On 01-04-20 21:24, Nightfox wrote to MRO <=-
There's plenty of information out there supporting the moon landing (though you'll probably find a way to say it's all lies or fake):
It has also been suggested that it would have been harder to fake the moon landings, given all the details, than to have actually done the real thing. This is given that you not only have to put stuff on the Moon that is there has been seen, and is used for science experiments, but also the accuracy of movement in 1/6g was correct (I have seen experiments done in the "vomit com to compare movement in actual 1/6g to that fudged by means normally accessib to movie studios).
And then there's a number of third parties like radio amateurs who tracked t mission, which means antennas pointing in the right direction, as well as correct Doppler shift for where the spacecraft was, no matter where in the world they were. There's only one way that could have happened. :)
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
... I'm going to make a prediction - it could go either way.
Re: Fake Landings
By: Rampage to HusTler on Sun Jan 05 2020 07:23 am
it comes from conspiracy theorists and deniers... they say it was all put and faked on a movie set sound stage... their biggest argument stems from ignorance as to why they cannot see stars in the moon landing pictures... ignorance is what drives these conspiracy theorys...
there's a lot of strange stuff regarding nasa. like they lost their data on the trip. the also taped over the video of the trip.
i dont think we could have done it back then technology wise. we werent advanced enough.
also they say we only landed on the moon once. why is that? just weird.
apparently you are not running the web server or you are running it on a non-standard port... my firefox tells me there's no connection to havens.synchro.net when i try with http and https...
it comes from conspiracy theorists and deniers... they say it was all put on and faked on a movie set sound stage... their biggest argument stems
i dont think we could have done it back then technology wise. we werent advanced enough.
also they say we only landed on the moon once. why is that? just weird.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It has also been suggested that it would have been harder to fake the moon landings, given all the details, than to have actually done the real thing. This is given that you not only have to put stuff on the Moon that is there has been seen, and is used for science experiments, but also the accuracy of movement in 1/6g was correct (I have seen experiments done in the "vomit com to compare movement in actual 1/6g to that fudged by means normally accessib to movie studios).
And then there's a number of third parties like radio amateurs who tracked t mission, which means antennas pointing in the right direction, as well as correct Doppler shift for where the spacecraft was, no matter where in the world they were. There's only one way that could have happened. :)
Yeah, just try faking all of that. ;)
... I'm going to make a prediction - it could go either way.
Maybe the "stuff" on the moon that is "there" was put there later, but
not in 1969.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Nightfox <=-
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with tinfoil, and got everything right about gravity, gravitational
pulls, orbits, solar flares, rate of descent and ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
There would be real video of this and real touch/feel evidence, and by now, a constant camera monitoring the sites from a satellite or
something in orbit around said moon.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Zombie Mambo on Sun Jan 05 2020 05:46 pm
it's something incredibly difficult that we probably cant even do today there's a lot of shit that doesnt make sense.
So if we didn't land on the moon in 1969, why do you think it is that Russia hasn't called us out on it after all these years? Russia was competing with in our space programs, and if we faked it, I'd think Russia would want to expose that fact. Or is there some big global conspiracy with other countri working with the US to hide the truth that our moon landing was faked?
NASA has lost data because they stored documentation locally in the hurrican belt rather than moving stuff to much stabler environments. Scientists have to reverse engineer 50 year ld Saturn rockets becuase the original plans wit
On 01-05-20 11:56, Zombie Mambo wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Maybe the "stuff" on the moon that is "there" was put there later, but
not in 1969.
On 01-05-20 13:13, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
1. Sheer distance - we're all far apart.
2. Relativity - signs of other civilisations haven't reached Earth yet, due to the finite speed of light.
True, and good points. :)
Yep, each iteration of complex life on Earth after extinction events seems to have become more advanced. The extinction events are like hitting the reset button, allowing different species to become dominant.
I've also heard a theory that humans might not have originated from
Earth and may have been planted here by extraterrestrials. I doubt
that though, since there are primate species on earth that are very similar (and I've heard we humans have about 99% of our DNA in common
with chiimpanzees.
On 01-05-20 13:15, Nightfox wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yep. Although we were able to make movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey,
I don't think our level of special effects technology was good enough
at the time to fake something like a moon landing.
On 01-05-20 16:07, Gamgee wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Maybe (around the middle of the pack). I might argue that we may
be "below average" due to the age of our planet. The universe is
roughly 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old. So, planets/systems that formed sooner (the ones
further out from the Big Bang, closer to the edges of the
universe), and therefore *older*... would theoretically have had
more time to develop and be more advanced than us. That's my
belief, anyway. :-)
On 01-05-20 16:26, Gamgee wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly,
I've flown on many Boeing planes, many times.
On 01-05-20 23:43, Moondog wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The Soviets and Chinese had all the reason in the world to debunk a
hoax and the technology to detect one. If something couldn't have been done, they'd be the first to call our bluff.
The same goes for the tall tales of cars in the 1960's leaving the factories with experimental 70mpg carburators. Big Oil couldn't buy
out the communists who would benefit off that stolen technology. The Chinese don't give a crap about patent protection. Second, why the
hell is a prototype carb sitting on a production vehicle instead of
being locked in a lab somewhere?
On 01-05-20 23:37, Moondog wrote to Nightfox <=-
On the series Cosmos I recall them saying in Earth's history there have been 4 near extinction events so far, and some form of life adapted and thrived afterwards. People worry about the planet, but it's not going anywhere. They should be worried where we're going.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Jan 05 2020 10:44 pm
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Zombie Mambo on Sun Jan 05 2020 05:46 pm
it's something incredibly difficult that we probably cant even do to there's a lot of shit that doesnt make sense.
So if we didn't land on the moon in 1969, why do you think it is that Rus hasn't called us out on it after all these years? Russia was competing w in our space programs, and if we faked it, I'd think Russia would want to expose that fact. Or is there some big global conspiracy with other coun working with the US to hide the truth that our moon landing was faked?
it's probably a cultural thing. the russians have already proven that they superior when it comes to outer space business.
Re: Fake Landings
By: Moondog to MRO on Sun Jan 05 2020 11:51 pm
NASA has lost data because they stored documentation locally in the hurri belt rather than moving stuff to much stabler environments. Scientists h to reverse engineer 50 year ld Saturn rockets becuase the original plans
regarding the moon data, they didnt say it was lost due to damage.
Vk3jed wrote to Gamgee <=-
Maybe (around the middle of the pack). I might argue that we may
be "below average" due to the age of our planet. The universe is
roughly 13.7 billion years old. The Earth is about 4.5 billion
years old. So, planets/systems that formed sooner (the ones
further out from the Big Bang, closer to the edges of the
universe), and therefore *older*... would theoretically have had
more time to develop and be more advanced than us. That's my
belief, anyway. :-)
But there is the possibility that the Universe itself has to have
evolved enough for the right conditions for life to emerge.
In the primordial Universe, once conditions had cooled
sufficiently for normal matter to form, the Universe was composed
mainlt of hydrogen, with a littl helium. That's not a useful
mixture, and it had to be transformed. This happened through
star formation. From what I understand of cosmology, the first
generation of stars were massive stars of the "live fast, die
young, in spectacular fashion" type. Their lives produced a
number of elements like carbon, oxygen, etc, with more heavier
elements produced in the supernovas at the end of their lives.
Some generations of stars had lived and died, before a supernova
nudged a large cloud of dust and gas 4.6 - 5 billion years ago.
This cloud formed into our sun and the planets. After 9 billion
years, there were now enough heavier elements to form both life
and a suitable habitat for it to develop in.
And again, from a consciousness point of view, perhaps
consciousness also had to develop over the eons to a point where
complex life could develop, just like a child has to develop to a
certain point, before they can understand the world around them,
and that understanding improves with age.
We don't really know, but I'm adding some thoughts to the
situation.
Vk3jed wrote to Gamgee <=-
On 01-05-20 16:26, Gamgee wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly,
I've flown on many Boeing planes, many times.
Me too - several 737 models, 767, 777, 747. Haven't flown on a
787 yet. The 747s got me to the US and back, well only as far as
NZ on the way back, because the last leg from Auckland was in an
A320. :)
6. The Sixth Major Mass Extinction: Happening Now?
Is it possible that we are in the midst of the sixth major mass extinction? Many scientists believe we are. A number of known species have been lost sin
regarding the moon data, they didnt say it was lost due to damage.
Even if it wasn't damaged, it was stored in the same storage system, and as buildings would've been damaged, items would've been moved and undamaged ite
would've also been relocated to make space.
I haven't been on a 787 yet, either. But I can add the 757 and
the 727 (I think the 727's are all gone now). Have also been on a
few Airbus models but somehow I feel better on a Boeing. :-)
I flew on a 737 that still had ashtrays in the armrest. :)
And if we treat intelligent life as an emergent property of this Universe, then
chances are other civilisations (at least in this galaxy) are at a stage comparable to our own. And therein lies the answer to Fermi's Paradox - we're
not seeing other civilisations, because of a combination of:
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
I haven't been on a 787 yet, either. But I can add the 757 and
the 727 (I think the 727's are all gone now). Have also been on a
few Airbus models but somehow I feel better on a Boeing. :-)
I flew on a 737 that still had ashtrays in the armrest. :)
Limping Ninja wrote to Vk3jed <=-
civilizations. I can't remember which series, I think it was Alastair Reynolds, had a sci-fi trope about the early civilizations warring to almost extinction and building a massive AI (that assumedly they were uploaded to) and self-propagating sentinel system that wiped out civilizations that became too advanced. I won't posit that as an actual outcome, though!
Limping Ninja wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
In regards to the radiation quote, do you think we are hiding a vast conspiracy on the amount of radiation in those belts? The rads/s is
easily quantifiable and simple math can show you roughly how much radiation an astronaut (without ship shielding) would receive in an
hour of flight, it's around 13rad, about 287 rad below a lethal dose.
bombed-out civilizations. They discovered a race that looked for telltales
of civilazation and took them out pre-emptively.
The Van Allen belts were apparently bad for hair, though - I remember reading that astronauts went gray shortly after coming back. Not sure if
that's quantifyable, though.
At the end even if you take just the possible planetary variance you are talking of scales that are longer than our rise to dominance and civilizatio I can't remember which series, I think it was Alastair Reynolds, had a sci-f trope about the early civilizations warring to almost extinction and buildin massive AI (that assumedly they were uploaded to) and self-propagating senti system that wiped out civilizations that became too advanced. I won't posit that as an actual outcome, though!
In regards to the radiation quote, do you think we are hiding a vast conspir on the amount of radiation in those belts? The rads/s is easily quantifiable and simple math can show you roughly how much radiation an astronaut (withou ship shielding) would receive in an hour of flight, it's around 13rad, about 287 rad below a lethal dose.
On 01-08-20 04:41, Limping Ninja wrote to Vk3jed <=-
The biggest rub here is that the earth is around 4.5ish billion years
old, the Milk Way is around 13.5. Even if life were an emergent
property that is a hugh margin. We could assume (albeit a bit naively
for now) that most solar systems took approximately the same time to
form but even in our models the planets in our system have variances of +/- 100MM years. On a grander scale, depending on star, the other solar systems would have even larger variances. Then look at the speed of evolution after certain criteria are met, are we anomalous or average
and what is the median.
At the end even if you take just the possible planetary variance you
are talking of scales that are longer than our rise to dominance and civilizations. I can't remember which series, I think it was Alastair Reynolds, had a sci-fi trope about the early civilizations warring to almost extinction and building a massive AI (that assumedly they were uploaded to) and self-propagating sentinel system that wiped out civilizations that became too advanced. I won't posit that as an actual outcome, though!
On 01-08-20 06:48, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
That's an interesting trope. I can't remember the name or author, but recall bits of a book where mankind started exploring nearby stars and found bombed-out civilizations. They discovered a race that looked for telltales of civilazation and took them out pre-emptively.
On 01-08-20 06:50, poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
The Van Allen belts were apparently bad for hair, though - I remember reading that astronauts went gray shortly after coming back. Not sure
if that's quantifyable, though.
On 01-08-20 15:47, MRO wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
i remember some astronaughts saying they had 'cosmic ray visual
phenomena' from the cosmic rays/radiation/whatever.
Limping Ninja wrote to Vk3jed <=-
civilizations. I can't remember which series, I think it was Alastair Reynolds, had a sci-fi trope about the early civilizations warring to almost extinction and building a massive AI (that assumedly they were uploaded to) and self-propagating sentinel system that wiped out civilizations that became too advanced. I won't posit that as an actual outcome, though!
That's an interesting trope. I can't remember the name or author, but recall bits of a book where mankind started exploring nearby stars and found bombed-out civilizations. They discovered a race that looked for telltales of civilazation and took them out pre-emptively.
... Children's voices -speaking -singing
that is some fake shit. gold foil you can poke your finger through kept them alive? not to mention made it all the way up there and back?
bullshit.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Nightfox <=-
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiation with tinfoil, and got everything right about gravity, gravitational pulls, orbits, solar flares, rate of descent and ascent, etc? With a Ti-Calculator for a computer?
Slide rules and paper calculations.
There would be real video of this and real touch/feel evidence, and by now, a constant camera monitoring the sites from a satellite or something in orbit around said moon.
Or, at least we could find the people who were responsible for aging the heat shield on Apollo 11 with butane torches before sending it to the Smithsonian.
... Would you like to wake up from this dream?
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Limping Ninja to Zombie Mambo on Wed Jan 08 2020 04:43 am
Boeing can't even get their planes to fly, but we got through radiatio
That's a cute statement, but you know there are > 100k flights per day with
In regards to the radiation quote, do you think we are hiding a vast conspir d receive in an hour of flight, it's around 13rad, about 287 rad below a let
Do you have data to contradict that? From what I see (looking at 'conspiracy This doesn't show a clear understanding of how space flight works (Kerbel Sp
On 01-05-20 11:56, Zombie Mambo wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Maybe the "stuff" on the moon that is "there" was put there later, but not in 1969.
And you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. :P
... Hey Dad, are we gonna stop for ice cream? Can we, huh?
Zombie Mambo wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
In regards to the radiation quote, do you think we are hiding a vast conspir d receive in an hour of flight, it's around 13rad, about 287 rad below a let
Do you have data to contradict that? From what I see (looking at 'conspiracy This doesn't show a clear understanding of how space flight works (Kerbel Sp
First, chill out dude.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of
sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
Once you realize that, you'll see that calculations mean nothing.
Also, you're speaking in terms of EARTH calculations.
Right there, I call BS.
Anything EARTH defined means nothing in space.
First, chill out dude.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
Once you realize that, you'll see that calculations mean nothing.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection
against grains of sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
Gamgee wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of
sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
There are no "grains of sand" in outer space. Certainly not
between the Earth and the Moon, anyway.
There are tonnes of debris in near-earth orbit to deal with.
poindexter FORTRAN wrote to Gamgee <=-
Gamgee wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of
sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
There are no "grains of sand" in outer space. Certainly not
between the Earth and the Moon, anyway.
There are tonnes of debris in near-earth orbit to deal with.
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand... foil of different types is used for various things... one is to shield against radiation... another is as an ablative shield to protect against heat of reentry...
Overall I think they received less than 2rad total due to shielding. With that said, they did notice a couple years back that some astronauts are possibly getting gene-flips on some hair genes.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
Once you realize that, you'll see that calculations mean nothing.
Also, you're speaking in terms of EARTH calculations.
Right there, I call BS.
Anything EARTH defined means nothing in space.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of sand movi at 2000,00000 KPH.
You obviously don't understand how the whipple shield is designed, what it i designed of, and how ballistics works.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/multiLayer_insulation_clos
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Rampage to Zombie Mambo on Fri Jan 10 2020 06:24 am
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand... foil of different types is used for various things... one is to shield against radiation... another is as an ablative shield to protect against heat of reentry...
It seems many of the moon landing conspiracy theorists don't fully understan the science or what all was involved in the vehicle or the process of the mo
At what grade level did you drop out of school?
You truly make yourself look stupid with statements like those
above. Go get some education.
First, chill out dude.
Huh? You quoted me saying there are > 100k flights per day and that it detra from your POV by saying "boeing can't even keep a plane in the sky" - I beli my response was perfectly valid.
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection against grains of sand movi at 2000,00000 KPH.
You obviously don't understand how the whipple shield is designed, what it i designed of, and how ballistics works.
Once you realize that, you'll see that calculations mean nothing.
Please feel free to provide the calculations disproving the effectiveness of ballistic dispersion on the whipple shielding, I'm happy to be disproven.
-LN
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Zombie Mambo to Limping Ninja on Thu Jan 09 2020 20:50:41
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection
against grains of sand moving at 2000,00000 KPH.
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand
then there's that number you put up there with all those zeros... since you only 2000 KPH... so for north americans and others that (still) use miles pe be much faster... quoted speeds range from 11 to 70+ KPS... yes, kilometers
protecting against meteoroids is done with layers of materials... numerous l rticles... the other layers serve to further slow, catch, and deflect those hrough the barriers so they put in more layers... these protective layers ar vests and clothing and you'll get the idea... in both cases, this protective p the projectiles...
https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/multiLayer_insulation_clos
or https://preview.tinyurl.com/s4vszo9
https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/body-armor-layers.jpg
https://image.dhgate.com/0x0s/f2-albu-g4-M01-25-14-rBVaEVe9VXuATrQCAAMCxJT
or https://preview.tinyurl.com/yxxkxaxf
i'm not going to go into more details here for various reasons... one is tha e details and information of how all this is put together and works... suffi worked many long hours to develop the systems that protect our electronics a
lastly, we (TINW) cannot tell if you (inclusive) are simply flaunting your i urselves, sirs... the information is available and there are real life examp
)\/(ark
Can you describe a little more precisely your argument for those of us pla
Anything EARTH defined means nothing in space.
Yeah, but if you accurately describe the inertial frames of reference you
At least I _think_ the term that I'm looking for is inertial frame of refe saying, though.
i understand that the whipple shield/bumper is a thin shield of
foil mounted with standoffs
Second, realize that tinfoil is not protection
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand
Actually people have said that. this last guy that referenced the whipple shield did.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Limping Ninja on Sat Jan 11 2020 13:42:25
i understand that the whipple shield/bumper is a thin shield of
foil mounted with standoffs
incorrect... there is no foil in a whipple shield... think "spaced armour" a you'll be a lot closer...
Actually people have said that. this last guy that referenced the whipple shield did.
no they didn't, if they did, i missed it... there are two types of shielding
this is extremely ironic considering the fact that YOU don't understand that they are infact claiming that a thin foil is actually a defense against natural missles out in space. tin foil mounted on brackets.
how it can even survive the trip out of the atmosphere, i have no idea.
Actually people have said that. this last guy that referenced the whipple shield did.
no they didn't, if they did, i missed it... there are two types of shielding
you missed it.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: MRO to Nightfox on Sat Jan 11 2020 02:22 pm
this is extremely ironic considering the fact that YOU don't understand that they are infact claiming that a thin foil is actually a defense against natural missles out in space. tin foil mounted on brackets.
how it can even survive the trip out of the atmosphere, i have no idea.
It has been explained numerous times in numerous places.
Google?
Are you a google scientist?
So I should just give up because you and any high school kid can regurgitate a link (without even knowing if it's right because you didn't spend the time to go that far) so there, I'm wrong?
I am entitled to believe we didn't land on the moon in 1969 because I don't feel we had the technology. We may have had some compelling studies and calculations, but I don't feel we could put it all together that quickly and make it work. I base that on a history of this country taking years to do things far less complex.
That's my argument. Its not a debate, its an opinion.
Turning my original opinion into an argument about equations you're googling is not going to change my mind, and for those highly educated folk that I can't have a conversation with because i'm of course just a rube that has GED saddens if your mind is changed because an equation or test here on earth exrapolated by some "Frame of Reference" concept then what else will you buy into? Is all that is needed to get your backing a study or two, some peer reviews, and test results?
To me, if we landed on the moon in 1969 there would be much more evidence. And someone else would have done it by now if there's "So much evidence out there". It would appear there would be a guide to follow that even a highschooler apparently could make happen.
SO why was it worth us doing in the first place, and why has only the USSR and China been able to even get there since?
a. because it's hard to get there, and technology wasn't good enough for a while. Wasn't it like 76 when russia went? They were a super power then. ANd they didn't send a man. So while maybe we could land something there, the challenge of keeping men alive seems pretty hard even almost 10 years later. b. because there's no reason to go there?
c. Because you can't
That's pretty much it.
If it were possible in 1969 it should be routine in 2020 and if the reasons for why it isn't are because its too hard, with all the technology we have now, well... That's enough for me.
I don't need to be a scientist, on things like this simple logical judgment sometimes is enough.
If it were possible in 1969 it should be routine in 2020 and if the
reasons for why it isn't are because its too hard, with all the
technology we have now, well... That's enough for me.
I agree that sounds pretty suspicious.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Gamgee <=-
At what grade level did you drop out of school?
You truly make yourself look stupid with statements like those
above. Go get some education.
Excellent comeback.
Zombie Mambo wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
I don't buy the testing, the results, the science behind any of
it because it was not tested in space.
"It -SHOULD- work" when we get there is a lot to bet human
life on.
MRO wrote to Nightfox <=-
ummm... no one said foil (not tinfoil) was protection against grains of sand... foil of different types is used for various things... one is to shield against radiation... another is as an ablative shield to protect against heat of reentry...
It seems many of the moon landing conspiracy theorists don't fully understan the science or what all was involved in the vehicle or the process of the mo
this is extremely ironic considering the fact that YOU don't
understand that they are infact claiming that a thin foil is
actually a defense against natural missles out in space. tin
foil mounted on brackets.
how it can even survive the trip out of the atmosphere, i have no
idea.
Who knows what we REALLY have between us and the moon and beyond that they arent telling us.
juvenile. Your stance is ignorant and, I daresay, disingenuous. Your asserti that the government of the United States faked a moon-landing and then someh was able to fool and quash all research of all scientists in the world until this very day to hide that fact is completely fluffing ridiculous.
On 01-09-20 20:51, Zombie Mambo wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yeah no crap. That's cuz all of these conspiracy shit is supposed to be comic relief.
I ignored it, because I don't care.
And, because we all know its bs. We never went there.
:)
quite easily, the reasons why it isn't common today is because of politics... follow the $$$... look at the budgets and where the $$$ was allocated...
look also at what happened with the apollo program TV broadcasts... there was good coverage for a while and then it slowed... why? because people got bored of seeing it so they switched to other channels... how do we know this? Neilsen Families and their ratings... the neilsen ratings started back in the '50s or before... they are also used for audio ratings and lead to what music is played more when it is more popular...
couple that with the budgets and how the congress lowered the $$$ for NASA to work with and it is easy to see how our space program has languished as badly as it has... today we have private industries leading the way to space... SpaceX's reusable 1st stages is a huge advantage at lower the cost to launch... without GPS and other technologies, it still wouldn't be possible or as easy as it is today...
i fully agree that we should have been on the moon with some sort of ""moon bases"" decades ago... however, i also feel that there would have been more tragedies if we had pushed for that as hard as we did to get apollo to the moon... tragedies in loss of personell and equipment due to possible unforeseen situations... but we cannot learn without failures... that's well known...
Zombie Mambo wrote to Limping Ninja <=-
I don't buy the testing, the results, the science behind any of
it because it was not tested in space.
That's because you don't understand science (or much else,
apparently). As I've already said, you're short on education.
"It -SHOULD- work" when we get there is a lot to bet human
life on.
You made a true and accurate statement right there. That's
exactly what we (NASA) did in the 60's/70's. Truth.
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
"He who dares, wins."
... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
Zombie Mambo wrote to Gamgee <=-
I don't buy the testing, the results, the science behind any of
it because it was not tested in space.
That's because you don't understand science (or much else,
apparently). As I've already said, you're short on education.
"It -SHOULD- work" when we get there is a lot to bet human
life on.
You made a true and accurate statement right there. That's
exactly what we (NASA) did in the 60's/70's. Truth.
"Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
"He who dares, wins."
I love how I'm short on education, like you know anything about
me.
You're short relevance, humor, and a few other things I won't
mention because I am not a complete pr1ck like you, and people
like you.
Re: Project Blue Book TV show
By: Zombie Mambo to Limping Ninja on Sat Jan 11 2020 10:45 am
Who knows what we REALLY have between us and the moon and beyond that t arent telling us.
You are railing against ad hominem attacks, but seriously your argument is j uash all research of all scientists in the world until this very day to hide
Furthing your argument that somehow there is a vast world-wide conspiracy to ossible.
-LN
OK so you all have got me watching this show as S1 is available via our local cable on-demand as a free with limited commercials show.
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
Yep. Although we were able to make movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey, I don
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
Or anyone who believes there's no way man built the pyramids.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were built? I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't understand how we can land a man on the moon but don't know how to build a pyramid with some rope and wood.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were buil I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't understand how we can la a man on the moon but don't know how to build a pyramid with some rope and wood.
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
Or anyone who believes there's no way man built the pyramids.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they
were built? I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't
understand how we can land a man on the moon but don't know how
to build a pyramid with some rope and wood.
that's easy to explain... the knowledge used then was lost over the ages... kinda like the knowledge of sword making was lost and some methods are only just now being rediscovered...
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Zombie Mambo to Gamgee on Sat Jan 25 2020 03:54 pm
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
Or anyone who believes there's no way man built the pyramids.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were buil
HusTler@ havens.synchro.net
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: HusTler to Zombie Mambo on Sun Jan 26 2020 11:04 am
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were built? I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't understand h we can land a man on the moon but don't know how to build a pyramid wit some rope and wood.
Building a pyramid and sending someone to the moon are two totally separate
I imagine there is a lot of information that has historically been lost. If ids were built, but we probably won't know for sure. The same goes with thi tation may have been written about them might not have been preserved.
Nightfox
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they
were built? I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't
Building a pyramid and sending someone to the moon are two totally
separate
I imagine there is a lot of information that has historically been
lost. If ids were built, but we probably won't know for sure. The
same goes with thi tation may have been written about them might not
I'd just like to see a replica built using whatever tools were available at the time. We have the documents describing God but no books like "How to bulid a Pyramid for dummies"? Ever seen these modern blacksmiths make a
sword? It takes them all day to make one sword. How do you supply an army of 1000 with a sword using this method. No books on "How to build a sword for dummies" either? :-) Out of all the civilations nodody left the "cookbook" behind?
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were buil >> I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't understand how we can la >> a man on the moon but don't know how to build a pyramid with some rope and >> wood.
they built them using leverage and other tricks. and a lot of slaves.
Out of all the civilations nodody left the "cookbook" behind?
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Zombie Mambo to Gamgee on Sat Jan 25 2020 03:54 pm
Yep. Anyone who actually believes the moon landings were faked
is...... an idiot.
Or anyone who believes there's no way man built the pyramids.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were buil
HusTler@ havens.synchro.net
but we went to the moon on our first try.
and got back.
So how did they build the pyramids? Why can't we explain how they were bu >> I'm not saying they didn't build them. I just don't understand how we can >> a man on the moon but don't know how to build a pyramid with some rope an >> wood.
they built them using leverage and other tricks. and a lot of slaves.
+1
* SLMR 2.1a * The bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.
Or, remember we were told we'd have flying cars by 1980?
Maybe we all assumed that was true because we all believed we actually lande on the moon in 1969 because surely, if we could get to the moon, we could figure out our own planet's ins/outs to the point that flying cars would be easy.
40 yrs later, still no flying cars and drones are just a rehash of model pla and helicopters with a few new bells and whistles, and autonomous cars kill people.
but we went to the moon on our first try.
and got back.
Thanks,
Zombie Mambo
Regarding slave labor, throwing a bunch of people at a project doesn't guarantee success. These workers had to be trained, skilled craftsmen who could lead others as well as build. The theory now is the family grave plots all over the valley were compensation for skilled labor.
I've heard that the bible and other religious documents have probably been edit
d and corrupted over time. I've heard the Catholic church removed and replaced
some of the sections of the bible hundreds of years ago..
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Zombie Mambo to HusTler on Mon Jan 27 2020 03:51 pm
but we went to the moon on our first try.
and got back.
First try? I don't know about that. There were a shit load of practice run
HusTler@ havens.synchro.net
they built them using leverage and other tricks. and a lot of slaves.
They had more than rope and wood. They had basic geometry, measuring device based on such geometry, and the workers were more specialized than what the average person assumes. They had to be much more than slaves. The valley i full of smaller family burial plots. Unlike salve labor that was purged whe no longer needed, the plots appear to be compensation for several years of service.
Regarding slave labor, throwing a bunch of people at a project doesn't guarantee success. These workers had to be trained, skilled craftsmen who could lead others as well as build. The theory now is the family grave pl all over the valley were compensation for skilled labor.
I don't doubt they had plenty of skilled labor, too. I suspect they would have needed more workers for hauling the stuff into place, and in greater numbers. Skilled workers are more scarce, so you don't want them getting hurt when that large stone block falls down. Hence the slaves.
* SLMR 2.1a * "Ummm, trouble with grammar have I? Yes!" --Yoda
Flying cars? Is that really practical? The concepts of flight and piloting eem simple, but so does the idea people can navigate open flat roads and properly maintain automobiles. If a car runs out of fuel, you can pull off the road. If a flying car is expected to be safe, it would have to be smarter than the driver to prevent running low on fuel or power. Same applies to landing and parking. Imagine what traffic and gridlock would loo like when lanes are not just left and right, but stacked? I'm sure there wi
be restricted flight zones over some population areas and suburbs, so flying anywhere you want or taking a direct flight path may not always be possible.
If it was done in 1969, it should be routine now.
cost should not be a factor
we should have colonies there by now
could do it. But if we had a colony on the moon, there would need to be air-tight shelters and a way to provide a steady supply of oxygen, water, an food, waste management, etc.. I don't think there's a big need for a moon colony right now. We have plenty of issues back on Earth that are arguably more important.
Nightfox wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
If it was done in 1969, it should be routine now.
cost should not be a factor
we should have colonies there by now
I'd think moon colonies would be a bit impractical, even now. I
can see why the US would have wanted to go to the moon in 1969 -
The idea of space travel was popular then, and we wanted to prove
to the Russians in particular that we could do it. But if we had
a colony on the moon, there would need to be air-tight shelters
and a way to provide a steady supply of oxygen, water, and food,
waste management, etc.. I don't think there's a big need for a
moon colony right now. We have plenty of issues back on Earth
that are arguably more important.
Despite the fact that the practicality of such transportation is lacking serious merit anyway.
Thanks,
Zombie Mambo
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Zombie Mambo to Moondog on Sat Feb 01 2020 11:59 am
If it was done in 1969, it should be routine now.
cost should not be a factor
we should have colonies there by now
I'd think moon colonies would be a bit impractical, even now. I can see why
we had a colony on the moon, there would need to be air-tight shelters and
on Earth that are arguably more important.
Nightfox
Nightfox wrote to Zombie Mambo <=-
If it was done in 1969, it should be routine now.
cost should not be a factor
we should have colonies there by now
I'd think moon colonies would be a bit impractical, even now. I
can see why the US would have wanted to go to the moon in 1969 -
The idea of space travel was popular then, and we wanted to prove
to the Russians in particular that we could do it. But if we had
a colony on the moon, there would need to be air-tight shelters
and a way to provide a steady supply of oxygen, water, and food,
waste management, etc.. I don't think there's a big need for a
moon colony right now. We have plenty of issues back on Earth
that are arguably more important.
No argument with most of that, other than the need for it. My
point there is that eventually.... mankind is going to have to
expand our living space, due to many factors... such as pollution, overcrowding, nuclear holocaust, or whatever. Eventually if we
want to survive as a species, we'll need somewhere new to live.
In order to do that, we have to learn how to live in hostile
environments like the moon, at least until we (hopefully) can
tailor a new planet/body to our needs (temp/atmosphere, etc).
We've got to start somewhere, and the moon is close by. I think
if we had continued the pace of the space program from the 1970's
to the present day, we might already have inhabited colonies on
Mars. Hopefully we will get things moving again soon.
... All the easy problems have been solved.
I liked looking at covers of magazines such as Popular Mechanics, especially from the 1960's when they would show the father of the household stepping ou of his helicopter arriving home from work. The cheapest helicopters are $400k or more.
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Moondog to Zombie Mambo on Mon Feb 03 2020 11:42 am
I liked looking at covers of magazines such as Popular Mechanics, especia from the 1960's when they would show the father of the household stepping of his helicopter arriving home from work. The cheapest helicopters are $400k or more.
yeah but the helicopters you build from the magazine dont cost that much.
Unserstood, but the helicopters I'm talking about were the futurist's view of commercial offerings we'd have by the 21st century. i don't believe we would have gridlock like seen in the movies, however there would be off limits
flight zones like they currently have for conventional aircraft. If you want to merge onto a road or enter cities, you'll have to obey flight zone rules
and enter air traffic holding patterns.
Whilst they sound cool and all, flying cars are an awful idea. The average driver has enough difficulty getting around two dimensional roads.
Whilst they sound cool and all, flying cars are an awful idea. The average d
Air traffic is so tightly controlled already, that having everyone zipping t to take it to work every day.
D
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Derision to Moondog on Tue Feb 04 2020 01:31 am
Whilst they sound cool and all, flying cars are an awful idea. The aver driver has enough difficulty getting around two dimensional roads.
With self-driving cars being developed though, I wouldn't be too surprised t
Nightfox
That's my point. They would have to be maintained in a similar way to airplanes, and if you look at how well or poorly some cars are taken care of,
I can't see a car owner paying the money to do a to the frame teardown and inspection, let alone pay to rebuild a vehicle. If there's a failure, there's
no equivalent of pulling off the shoulder and calling a wrecker.
Conversely, something like an autogyro would be a much better idea because it generates lift from an unpowered rotor, so if the engine quits while you're in the air, you just slowly and gently descend to the ground. But they're also not much faster than just driving a car, so there isn't that much of a point unless you're an enthusiast.
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Moondog to Derision on Tue Feb 04 2020 16:35:00
That's my point. They would have to be maintained in a similar way to airplanes, and if you look at how well or poorly some cars are taken care of,
I can't see a car owner paying the money to do a to the frame teardown an inspection, let alone pay to rebuild a vehicle. If there's a failure, there's
no equivalent of pulling off the shoulder and calling a wrecker.
Hell, even a lot of airplanes are horribly maintained. I knew this guy with gular plane (you can't change the seats in a Piper or a Cessna or something e. That's how I'd see the "regular" driver-turned-pilot, and it's just waiti
Conversely, something like an autogyro would be a much better idea because i just driving a car, so there isn't that much of a point unless you're an ent
AJ
Moondog wrote to Derision <=-
off. My uncle was a bit hard headed and was angry the guy was tearing into the plane, but afterwards he realized how much danger his son was
in flying around a 20 year old plane with serious rot problems, and probably saved someone else from having the tail snap off in the middle
of flight.
Moondog wrote to Derision <=-
off. My uncle was a bit hard headed and was angry the guy was tearing into the plane, but afterwards he realized how much danger his son was in flying around a 20 year old plane with serious rot problems, and probably saved someone else from having the tail snap off in the middle of flight.
Still, sort of a dick move. :|
... Emphasize differences
Still, sort of a dick move. :|
The tail piece broke was a section steel rebar type material. He didn't break it on purpose. He showed my uncle how rusted it was by showing how it bends, when it shouldn't bend. It snapped instead. Anyone familiar with ultralights would've checked the fabric and structural components before buying a plane they cannot fly.
Definitely not a dick move, it's important to know the shape things are in. When I was looking at buying a Jeep, I brought a hammer to each one I viewed I could pound on the frame. Half the time, the frames would disintegrate aft three taps. Generally, the sellers were disappointed but glad that they'd fo out about it.
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Moondog to poindexter FORTRAN on Tue Feb 18 2020 18:40:00
Still, sort of a dick move. :|
The tail piece broke was a section steel rebar type material. He didn't break it on purpose. He showed my uncle how rusted it was by showing how bends, when it shouldn't bend. It snapped instead. Anyone familiar with ultralights would've checked the fabric and structural components before buying a plane they cannot fly.
Definitely not a dick move, it's important to know the shape things are in. ly, the sellers were disappointed but glad that they'd found out about it.
AJH
Definitely not a dick move, it's important to know the shape things are in. When I was looking at buying a Jeep, I brought a hammer to each one I viewed I could pound on the frame. Half the time, the frames would disintegrate aft three taps. Generally, the sellers were disappointed but glad that they'd fo out about it.
if you came up on my vehicle with a hammer you would get 3 taps and disintegrate.
lol. Running a magnet along a body or tapping it with a hammer is more of a cosmetic issue than a structural issue, however finding out half the vehicle is rotted away will compel me to certainly look at the frame and hitch points. My brother's hobby is off roading, and he runs into quite a few truck s and jeeps that look awesome on the surface, but have serious rot issues. We've had to talk my nephew out of buying old beater trucks because the Michigan winters and road salt laid waste to the undersides of some otherwise nice trucks with strong motors.
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: Moondog to Derision on Sun Feb 23 2020 16:02:00
lol. Running a magnet along a body or tapping it with a hammer is more o cosmetic issue than a structural issue, however finding out half the vehi is rotted away will compel me to certainly look at the frame and hitch points. My brother's hobby is off roading, and he runs into quite a few truck s and jeeps that look awesome on the surface, but have serious rot issues. We've had to talk my nephew out of buying old beater trucks beca the Michigan winters and road salt laid waste to the undersides of some otherwise nice trucks with strong motors.
Man, almost all Jeeps have the frame rot. It's almost like Chrysler made the r that coating.
I have an XJ where they seem to have given up painting the underbody about h
AJH
Re: Re: Fake Landings
By: MRO to Derision on Sun Feb 23 2020 13:17:40
Definitely not a dick move, it's important to know the shape things ar in. When I was looking at buying a Jeep, I brought a hammer to each on viewed I could pound on the frame. Half the time, the frames would disintegrate aft three taps. Generally, the sellers were disappointed glad that they'd fo out about it.
if you came up on my vehicle with a hammer you would get 3 taps and disintegrate.
Heheh. If the frame of your vehicle can't take three taps from a hammer -- o if you're wary of a potential buyer doing so -- then I would have turned aro as soon as you objected.
oh i was up real late. been working 75 hr weeks. still, i wouldnt want someone pounding around. visual inspection does the job just fine.
My brother's mid-90's YJ had the frames rot near the rear. I never understood how they retained their resale value.
They didn't, up until fairly recently... the whole Cash for Clunkers nonsense t
ok a fleet of servicable used cars off the market, driving up the prices of eve
ything else...
They didn't, up until fairly recently... the whole Cash for Clunkers
nonsense t ok a fleet of servicable used cars off the market, driving
up the prices of eve ything else...
I think that was actually the whole point... fuel the economy by getting rid of the cheaper sources of used cars and making the remaining ones more expensive. There are cars that don't even run that sell for way more than they should ever be worth now that there are fewer older, cheaper alternatives.
They didn't, up until fairly recently... the whole Cash for Clunkers nonsen >ok a fleet of servicable used cars off the market, driving up the prices of >ything else...
I think that was actually the whole point... fuel the economy by getting
rid of the cheaper sources of used cars and making the remaining ones more expensive. There are cars that don't even run that sell for way more than they should ever be worth now that there are fewer older, cheaper alternatives.
* SLMR 2.1a * Warning! Incomprehensible action is about to occur.
And that is REALLY hurting those of us that don't have a lot of money to spa or youth looking to purchase their first vehicles.
-+-
And that is REALLY hurting those of us that don't have a lot of money to spare,
or youth looking to purchase their first vehicles.
The goal of Cash for Clunkers was to get lesser efficient vehicles off the road.
The goal of Cash for Clunkers was to get lesser efficient vehicles off the road. In practice, I question how many "decomissioned" vehicles were scrapped, or even neutralized by pouring epoxy down their drivetrains. I heard after awhile some scrap yards could not process the vehilces in the required amount of time. I'm not sure if a retired VIN could be made insurable again, however I can imagine other components could be salvaged.
Lupine Furmen wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
And that is REALLY hurting those of us that don't have a lot of money
to spare, or youth looking to purchase their first vehicles.
Moondog wrote to Lupine Furmen <=-
I question if someone who does not have alot of money should be buying
a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient, unless it is a work truck.
Dumas Walker wrote to LUPINE FURMEN <=-
I think a lot of folks fall into one of those categories. I am not the type that needs to keep up with the Joneses, so I normally buy used. However, the last time I went looking, a decent used car that would
have cost me maybe $5k before cash-for-clunkers is now upwards of $15k.
I could by a much newer car for not much more. :(
If I buy a new car, there's no upside.
Yeah, I've got a 16 year old son, and I'm looking for one of
those $500 beaters that used to be common on Craigslist. Now
they're all racing in the 24 hour of Lemons series.
ryan wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
All that said, we happily lease a car. We're on our second lease and
it's nice. We don't pay for maintenance, unless we need new tires. We drive less than 10k miles/year so we get a rather low rate for a nice brand new car. And every three years, we get a new one, and we turn the old one in, no questions asked.
I understand that it's silly to throw money away like that, but I don't think of a car as an investment, I think of it as a necessity that I'd like to have a few years, throw out and get a new one...sort of like a cell phone or tablet or something.
blocks to work (if I even go in), otherwise I travel frequently and work pay for flights/rentals/ubers. My gf drives a mile each way for work. Other than that, groceries and restaurants are the places we go, and we don't typically go far...nice thing about living in the Bay Area is everything is close, unless you want to take a weekend trip.
I think that was actually the whole point... fuel the economy by getting rid of the cheaper sources of used cars and making the remaining ones more expensive. There are cars that don't even run that sell for way more than they should ever be worth now that there are fewer older, cheaper alternatives.
And that is REALLY hurting those of us that don't have a lot of money to spare, or youth looking to purchase their first vehicles.
The goal of Cash for Clunkers was to get lesser efficient vehicles off the road. In practice, I question how many "decomissioned" vehicles were scrapped, or even neutralized by pouring epoxy down their drivetrains. I heard after awhile some scrap yards could not process the vehilces in the required amount of time. I'm not sure if a retired VIN could be made insurable again, however I can imagine other components could be salvaged. The motor still ran good in my 17 year old truck, but I had to watch the oil level each week.
I question if someone who does not have alot of money should be buying
a vehicle that isn't fuel efficient, unless it is a work truck.
RYAN wrote to POINDEXTER FORTRAN <=-
If I buy a new car, there's no upside.
I understand that it's silly to throw money away like that, but I don't think of a car as an investment, I think of it as a necessity that I'd like to have a few years, throw out and get a new one...sort of like a cell phone or tablet or something.
Then again, I have a '67 GTO parked and rising in value daily, so I
guess I get the best of both worlds hehe.
It's easy for most of us to sit back and say that, but for a lot of people, vehicle is required transportation, and the fuel efficiency isn't really tha important. Someone who is poor and needs to get to a job or travel to take c of a family member or something generally doesn't have the extra money -- or the credit -- to get something newer and more fuel efficient, so a cranky ol minivan or an Oldsmobile from the Carter administration is better than nothi even if they're running on a quarter tank of gas 90% of the time.
This right here. My first car was an awful '78 Buick Skylark that I got for a whopping $100 in 1995. It had problems but I'd seen peers with brand new Mustangs and Mercedes and such as their first cars, and they all inevitably get it banged up or something, so we wanted to go cheap yet reliable, with no worries if it got a little dinged up.
Lupine Furmen wrote to All <=-
Yeah, My first car was a 73 Mercury Comet GT that my dad bought me and paid like 4 or 500 for it. It needed work, but that was the whole
point. My parents believed that both my sister and I should be able to
do our own maintenance on our vehicles. So the semester after I got the car I took Auto-Shop in HS and learned how to make my own repairs.
Yep - gotta have it - it will wear out - we will want something more modern. A cell phone is a good analagy!
Then again, I have a '67 GTO parked and rising in value daily, so I guess I get the best of both worlds hehe.
NICE! LOL
... If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0
Yeah, My first car was a 73 Mercury Comet GT that my dad bought me and paid like 4 or 500 for it. It needed work, but that was the whole point. My parents believed that both my sister and I should be able to do our own maintenance on our vehicles. So the semester after I got the car I took Auto-Shop in HS and learned how to make my own repairs. I really miss that car and wish I still had it, even though that little 302 V8 would probably be killing me with todays gas prices, especially considering that everytime I put gas in I would have to add a lead addative since it ran on REGULAR gas.
Recently in an off roading bog I read about a trend in truck buyers buying fairly clean 1970's era GM trucks from out west or down south, and stripping them down and rebuilding them frame up cheaper than buying a new truck. Loads of aftermarket and spare parts, and as long as you're not throwing old hoses, brake lines and other deadlined worn parts back in, you can put together a reliable everyday driver. Way too often builders get a bit silly a nd stray off the clasic daily driver concept and build something that is neither cost effective to run or wears out parts faster.
I wonder if this formula can be carried over to the high mileage warrior cars such as Hondas and Toyotas? Will a builder get return of investment if they did a restore in order to sell it versus keeping it?
Derision wrote to Lupine Furmen <=-
I learned so much about cars just trying to keep my old '78 Skylark
going. There was so much wrong with it, and I swear I had the hood open
at least twice a day. But now, swapping out a water pump on the side of the road or rigging up a temporary brake system at a rest stop doesn't phase me at all.
Derision wrote to Moondog <=-
combo you could think of, so getting an old V6 Monte Carlo or Blazer,
and assuming that the frame and body aren't rotted out, throwing in new components is simple and often much cheaper than getting something new
or trying to repair what's already in there.
Derision wrote to Moondog <=-
combo you could think of, so getting an old V6 Monte Carlo or Blazer, and assuming that the frame and body aren't rotted out, throwing in new components is simple and often much cheaper than getting something new or trying to repair what's already in there.
Preppers and ex-military keep talking about CUC-Vs, one model was an old Blazer with 24v electronics and a rock solid diesel V8. Sounds like a keeper if you can find one that's in good shape and don't mind driving a 4WD that looks like a military vehicle.
... Where are we? When are we? Is this now?
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
You can always repaint them. Diesels have 2-3 times the lifespan of a gasoline engine.
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
You can always repaint them. Diesels have 2-3 times the lifespan of a gasoline engine.
I love diesels - Drove a Rabbit Diesel in college, probably put 200K on it, by just changing the oil, brakes and tires.
Yep, keep the oil changed and they run forever - partly because, I'm told, they're made for such high compression ratios needed to ignite the diesel without using spark plugs, something like 23:1.
... Have you ever asked a question you weren't supposed to ask?
Moondog wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
The USMC adopted a diesel motorcycle so it could drink from the same
tap as every other vehicle, and there's no such thing as kick starting
it.
| Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
|---|---|
| Location: | Prospect, CT |
| Users: | 333 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 02:06:43 |
| Calls: | 574 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Messages: | 235809 |
