Duane Daman Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 If in fact there is no documentation for either Collins or NASA asserting that this image is an actual photograph of the Gemini-10 EVA, how can you allege that they IMPLIED it when in fact Collins explicitly states (on page 254 of the Ballantine edition) that there WERE no photographs of his EVA: "One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]" Therefore, by Collin's own account, can't we conclude that any picture of him in a spacesuit is not that of the Gemini EVA? Nice twist of words from Oberg ... The full quote was "One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk OVER THE AGENA .... Collins is simply stating that there wasn't any footage of him performing a specific procedure during his spacewalk and that was approaching the Agena.... I'd be interested to know where Oberg got this misquote from given his demonstrated ignorance about the 1975 edition. Pretty clear-cut to me. I'm not surprised Rene never answered. He'd either have to face losing $10,000 or admitting he was wrong... something that many of these Hoax Believers seem loathe to do. Instead he just ignores it. I'm not surprised why he never answered, considering Ralph Rene' never got those supposed letters from Oberg.... The best excuse the propagandists can give is that the post office lost all the letters sent over FIVE YEARS !! ...And they still continue to insist that Rene' was privately offered this money, even after the release of video 'Carrying The xxxx ' ??? Moonfaker: Carrying The xxxx Since Oberg is now a member of the Education Forum, why not let's see if he's willing to bet 10,000 dollars for proof that he actually sent those letters off to Ralph Rene' ? If you want to talk about turning down money, why not start with the $5,000 that Neil Armstrong refused to accept from Bart Sibrel? ...Or the $1,000,000 that Phil Plait offered for anyone who shows video of astronauts making great jumps during lunar EVA, you know, the $1,000,000 that Plait refused to pay when greenmagoos showed such footage. The sub-orbital lobs probably did not allow the astronaut's eyes time time adjust and see the stars. What about Melvil's flight ? .... His was suborbital also and he could see the STARS AND PLANETS ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE EARTH . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 If in fact there is no documentation for either Collins or NASA asserting that this image is an actual photograph of the Gemini-10 EVA, how can you allege that they IMPLIED it when in fact Collins explicitly states (on page 254 of the Ballantine edition) that there WERE no photographs of his EVA: "One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]" Therefore, by Collin's own account, can't we conclude that any picture of him in a spacesuit is not that of the Gemini EVA? Nice twist of words from Oberg ... The full quote was "One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk OVER THE AGENA .... Collins is simply stating that there wasn't any footage of him performing a specific procedure during his spacewalk and that was approaching the Agena.... I'd be interested to know where Oberg got this misquote from given his demonstrated ignorance about the 1975 edition. Pretty clear-cut to me. I'm not surprised Rene never answered. He'd either have to face losing $10,000 or admitting he was wrong... something that many of these Hoax Believers seem loathe to do. Instead he just ignores it. I'm not surprised why he never answered, considering Ralph Rene' never got those supposed letters from Oberg.... The best excuse the propagandists can give is that the post office lost all the letters sent over FIVE YEARS !! ...And they still continue to insist that Rene' was privately offered this money, even after the release of video 'Carrying The xxxx ' ??? Moonfaker: Carrying The xxxx Since Oberg is now a member of the Education Forum, why not let's see if he's willing to bet 10,000 dollars for proof that he actually sent those letters off to Ralph Rene' ? If you want to talk about turning down money, why not start with the $5,000 that Neil Armstrong refused to accept from Bart Sibrel? ...Or the $1,000,000 that Phil Plait offered for anyone who shows video of astronauts making great jumps during lunar EVA, you know, the $1,000,000 that Plait refused to pay when greenmagoos showed such footage. The sub-orbital lobs probably did not allow the astronaut's eyes time time adjust and see the stars. What about Melvil's flight ? .... His was suborbital also and he could see the STARS AND PLANETS ON THE DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE EARTH . Sorry - you are willing to bet Jim Oberg $10,000 that he either never sent the letter to Rene, or that Rene never received it? I just want to be totally clear about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) Sorry - you are willing to bet Jim Oberg $10,000 that he either never sent the letter to Rene, or that Rene never received it? Read what I posted again .. Since Oberg is now a member of the Education Forum, why not let's see if he's willing to bet 10,000 dollars for proof that he actually sent those letters off to Ralph Rene' ? I clearly stated that I wonder if Jim Oberg would be willing to bet if he can prove that he sent all of those alleged letters to Ralph Rene'. This has nothing to do with my betting anything ... This is between Rene' and Oberg .... Oberg said he sent letters to Rene' which included this $10,000.00 bet, and Rene' said he never recieved any letters . Moonfaker: Carrying The xxxx http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lSyxD7B2Siw Edited January 13, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Thanks for clearing that up, Duane; I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying. Speaking of correcting matters, you should tell that Jarrah person he has got things backward in that silly moonfaker clip. He says that Jay Windley is a "self-proclaimed aerospace engineer". This is actually wrong, since Jay actually holds aerospace engineering qualifications and works in aerospace engineering. I think what Jarrah (I wanna be 007) White meant to say was Ralph Rene is a self-proclaimed... something, since he is self-taught in the 'academic' matters such as physics, engineering, etc. Rene does not hold any academic qualifications. References: http://ralphrene.com/biography.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Rene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Holy LOL http://ralphrene.com/ The funniest site I have ever read. Duane, why do you associate yourself with crackpots? Can you honestly read that page and tell me that you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 "Science is supposed to be fueled by proof. However, since World War Two heavily credentialed academic gas bags have run the show. For the last twenty years, I have submitted portions of my work to these gas bags and not receieved a single receipt of the material let alone has anyone duplicated any of my experiments nor checked a simple calculation." "I also found that the Moon is much more reflective of sunlight than can be explained by its surface material as shown by the Apollo landing photos." That sounds pretty logical to me . Calling Rene' names such as "crackpot " in no way discredits him or his work, but rather makes you look as desperate and as immature as your pal Craig . But don't forget that name calling is a two way street ... There are plently of names that I call you and your friends, but unfortuantely I'm not allowed to post them here . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 "Science is supposed to be fueled by proof. However, since World War Two heavily credentialed academic gas bags have run the show. For the last twenty years, I have submitted portions of my work to these gas bags and not receieved a single receipt of the material let alone has anyone duplicated any of my experiments nor checked a simple calculation.""I also found that the Moon is much more reflective of sunlight than can be explained by its surface material as shown by the Apollo landing photos." That sounds pretty logical to me . Calling Rene' names such as "crackpot " in no way discredits him or his work, but rather makes you look as desperate and as immature as your pal Craig . But don't forget that name calling is a two way street ... There are plently of names that I call you and your friends, but unfortuantely I'm not allowed to post them here . Ah come on now Duane, Rene is a nobody. How could he be, he lives in Noplace, Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Ah come on now Duane, Rene is a nobody. How could he be, he lives in Noplace, Indiana. Using projection again ? ... You really do need to get some new material . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Ah come on now Duane, Rene is a nobody. How could he be, he lives in Noplace, Indiana. Using projection again ? ... You really do need to get some new material . Well no Duane, just using your logic, and YOUR material. Rene lives in a 6000 population small town in Indiana. Your stance on such a thing is well documented on this forum. Are you now trying to retract your position since it also concerns one of your 'leaders"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 (edited) Calling Rene' names such as "crackpot " in no way discredits him or his work, but rather makes you look as desperate and as immature as your pal Craig . Definition of crackpot:- "Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science or mathematics, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs." Rene is selling a mathematical "proof" on his website that the accepted value of Pi isn't what it's claimed to be. "12 years ago Dan W. Gaddy did just that and in doing so, found that PI does not equal 3.1415926 but instead it equals 3.146264 . The 12 page pamphlet ($6.00) shows Gaddy's method." No doubt this will come as something as a surprise to the millions of mathematicians and physicists who've been using the accepted value of pi for centuries. Duane, the guy's a crackpot. A loveable, eccentric crackpot maybe, without whom the world would be a less colourful place: but a crackpot nonetheless. Edited January 14, 2008 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Rene is selling a mathematical "proof" on his website that the accepted value of Pi isn't what it's claimed to be."12 years ago Dan W. Gaddy did just that and in doing so, found that PI does not equal 3.1415926 but instead it equals 3.146264 . The 12 page pamphlet ($6.00) shows Gaddy's method." No doubt this will come as something as a surprise to the millions of mathematicians and physicists who've been using the accepted value of pi for centuries. I'm guessing that he has squared the circle. I'm not paying $6 to find out, though. About Pi Calculating Pi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin Stone Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 You missed out the best part Dave! Newtonian gravity does not exist as the moon should fall into the sun. Cliffs should not exist There is no equatorial bulge Stars don't change shape The moon is also more reflective than can be as seen by the Apollo photos. Duane, on one hand you say that the Albedo is too low to prevent seeing stars, then you agree with Rene that the surface is too bright to be explained. Make your mind up The force that attracts all the planets together is based on coulombs law It goes on hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Or the $1,000,000 that Phil Plait offered for anyone who shows video of astronauts making great jumps during lunar EVA, you know, the $1,000,000 that Plait refused to pay when greenmagoos showed such footage. Could you give a link to where that was made? I'd never heard of this before. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) You missed out the best part Dave!Newtonian gravity does not exist as the moon should fall into the sun. Cliffs should not exist There is no equatorial bulge Stars don't change shape The moon is also more reflective than can be as seen by the Apollo photos. Duane, on one hand you say that the Albedo is too low to prevent seeing stars, then you agree with Rene that the surface is too bright to be explained. Make your mind up The force that attracts all the planets together is based on coulombs law It goes on hahaha You took Rene's comments OUT OF CONTEXT .... Which of course is so typical of those who attempt to character assassinate any "CT" they disagree with . Edited January 14, 2008 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted January 14, 2008 Author Share Posted January 14, 2008 Thanks for clearing that up, Duane; I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.Speaking of correcting matters, you should tell that Jarrah person he has got things backward in that silly moonfaker clip. He says that Jay Windley is a "self-proclaimed aerospace engineer". This is actually wrong, since Jay actually holds aerospace engineering qualifications and works in aerospace engineering. I think what Jarrah (I wanna be 007) White meant to say was Ralph Rene is a self-proclaimed... something, since he is self-taught in the 'academic' matters such as physics, engineering, etc. Rene does not hold any academic qualifications. References: http://ralphrene.com/biography.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Rene This reply is from Jarrah White since your accusation is against him . "For a man who clams to hold a Bachelor's degree in engineering physics, but has repeatably demonstrated notorious ignorance concerning aerospace practices and even aerospace history. On his website, he had previous claimed that Bill Kaysing's May 1963 retirement predated Rocketsyne's involvement with the Apollo program. This is false: the F-1 development began a year before he joined in 1956, the H-1 in 1958 and the J-2 in 1960, in fact, it was a year later when NASA began test launching Apollo rockets using this engine. When I pointed this out to Windley, he promptly denied the Saturn was part of the Apollo program. A year later, accepting it was, he promptly denied that Kaysing worked on the Saturn V altogether. Of this overlooks the fact that Kaysing's career coincided with the development of those engines supplied on the Saturn. Finally accepting that Kaysing was indeed around during the development of those engines, Windley latest backpedal was that he left prior to any significant breakthroughs. This of course ignores Project First: a program assembled to try and overcome the F-1's instability programs. Of course this program ended after Kaysing's career, but it was as late as 1966, the year NASA approved of these engines for the Saturn V, that von Braun and Rocketdyne still couldn't garrentee the instability problems were solved. I could go on but I think I've said enough: I doubt Windley has the qualifications he hypes about and is just making up disinformation as he goes: most of which can easily be shot down simply by looking at the records. I doubt Windley really believes his own hype. So I can assure your friend Burton that by calling Windley a self-proclaimed aerospace engineer, I meant what I said." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now