Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times."
One giant leap, in fact.
-
If you want to check if someone is ex-military or not, try here:
http://archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/
To be honest, I couldn't tell you anything about if a person had be seconded to the CIA. Maybe they had; maybe they hadn't.
Did they see evidence of extraterrestrial craft? Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Because I do want to see such evidence, I am always quite sceptical of reports without evidence.
Why would people say this? As Robert has said, they could seek to discredit some groups by association. They could simply seek notoriety. They could be telling what they believe to be true but in fact be mistaken. They could be telling the plain truth. Without solid evidence of such, though, their story must be treated with the appropriate measure of scepticism.
-
The world just celebrated the 40th anniversary of America's landing on the moon. But a local man has a problem with the official story -- and now he's also got a problem with the law.
Bart Sibrel is a well-known conspiracy theorist whose made a bit of a career out of ambushing America's astronauts, trying to make them look like hot-headed fakes. Sibrel, who calls himself an investigative journalist, has produced videos questioning whether the moon landing ever happened. His 2001, widely discredited documentary called it "the greatest government coverup of all time."
As part of his crusade, Sibrel has repeatedly ambushed the Apollo astronauts, demanding that they admit they had faked it all.
Video from 2002 shows the day that he repeatedly berated NASA legend Buzz Aldrin -- eventually getting exactly what he wanted.
"Will you get away from me?" Aldrin demanded.
"You're a coward and a xxxx," Sibrel shouted, moving closer and closer to Aldrin.
At that point, the former astronaut punched Sibrel in the face.
Turning to his videographer, Sibrell asked, "Did you get that on camera? Did you get that on camera?"
And, indeed, that punch made national headlines. But Sibrel, who moonlights as a Nashville cab driver, apparently lost control a few months back over his own landing of sorts. Court documents show he was arrested after another driver refused to pull out of a parking space he wanted. She was waiting for her car engine to warm up.
The arresting officer wrote, "A few moments later, the parking space in front of the victim opened up and [sibrel] drove into it and parked."
Sibrel "then walked up to the victim's car and jumped onto the hood, and then jumped up and down several times."
The report says he caused about $1,431.33 in damage. Last month, according to the court's website, Sibrel pleaded guilty to vandalism and was placed on probation. But, as you might have guessed, that's one outburst you won't see in his videos. Sibrel did not respond to an email from NewsChannel 5 Investigates.
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.a...av=menu374_2_11
-
I look forward to reading them.
-
No problems here.
-
So, Jack - are you going to admit your error?
-
Gavin,
Please remember: no remarks about research abilities. Also, the remarks above I considered to be offensive and have removed them.
Thanks!
-
Let's have another look.
The width of the LM is 12 feet 10 inches. Let's call it 13 feet.
So, roughly, how long is the shadow?
The shadow looks to be about 30 feet in length, so the sun angle could be around 20 degrees. Still well within the expected dimensions.
-
Jack,
You are really embarrassing yourself here. Any high school student can prove you wrong.
Height of main descent stage: 10 feet 7 inches / 322.58 centimetres (not including the RC plume deflectors)
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATSystems.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/lmrefb.jpg
Let's estimate the sun angle at 10 degrees. I don't have tables to calculate it right now, but it is a reasonable assumption.
In a right angle triangle we have:
In our example we have:
A (sun angle) = 10 degrees
a (descent stage height) = 322.58 centimetres
b (shadow length) = ????
Therefore:
Tan A = a/b therefore b = a / TanA
b (in cm) = 322.58 cm / Tan 10 degrees
b = 322.58 / 0.1763269807
b = 1829.4420 cm = 18.29 metres or just over 60 feet.
-
Yeah, Jack is really grasping at straws with that one. Worthy of a Stundie, I think.
For those that don't have the background knowledge, and didn't read the first few posts I made, here is a descent stage. This one is from Apollo 16, taken from the LRV camera which was left behind and functioned by remote control:
Now, let's have a look at an astronaut standing next to one:
It's not small by any means!
-
Seems some people are cheering his death:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PH...cseen#msg743079
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?PH...cseen#msg743070
-
Now, someone also asked about the shadows. A poster on another board, rodionh, made these calculations with Orbiter flight sim:
The LM descent stage. Remember this is in the lunar AFTERNOON, so the shadows are in the opposite direction to the lunar surface images taken by the astronauts, which were taken in the lunar morning.
Now we pull back, and you see some of the detail.
Now, an orbital view of what that would look like:
Compare that with the LRO image:
-
Apollo 11
Apollo 14 images showing footprint trails and SEP
Apollo 15
-
Well, that's put paid to the Apollo hoax claims. Equipment where it is supposed to be, etc. Amazing you can even see the footprint trail in the Apollo 14 images. Yep - the low orbit images will be amazing.
How long before we hear a familiar voice cry "Fake"?
-
First releases of restored Apollo 11 video:
-
MEDIA ADVISORY: M09-133
NASA BRIEFS MEDIA ON NEW IMAGES OF APOLLO LUNAR LANDING SITES
GREENBELT, Md. -- NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has sent back its first images of Apollo lunar landing sites. The agency will release the images Friday, July 17, at noon and hold a teleconference at 2 p.m. EDT to discuss the photos and future plans for the LRO mission.
Participating in the teleconference are:
Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist, NASA Headquarters, Washington
Richard Vondrak, project scientist, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
Mark Robinson, principal investigator, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, Arizona State University
To participate in the teleconference, reporters should contact Grey Hautaluoma at 202-358-0668 or Andy Freeberg at 301-286-0746, by noon Friday.
To listen to the event online, visit:
For more information about LRO, visit:
-
-
The poll / discussion will also be repeated on the JFK section of the board. You might have one opinion on one section of the board, and a different opinion for a different section of the board. Please use the respective sections to make your opinions known.
If you think it's better merged into one, I have no problems.
-
An online slanging match over a 9/11 conspiracy book that quickly degenerated into a vitriolic war of words is now the subject of a $42.5-million defamation case.
The case could be a landmark case as it may set a precedent around the responsibilities of website owners to police the comments published by readers.
Greg Smith, a small Sydney film producer specialising in conspiracy theories, claims he is now millions of dollars out of pocket after he was defamed on the forums of Australian community website zGeek.com.
Smith had been contracted by a group of Eastern European investors to produce a film called Merchant Of Death, a documentary about the life and times of alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who is being held in Thailand waiting for the outcome of an extradition request from the US.
But the film deal was axed after the overseas party that contracted Smith to make the film allegedly stumbled across the comments on the zGeek forum and decided Smith's reputation was too damaged to continue.
Smith, 34, is now suing Sydneysider Tony Brisciani, owner of zGeek, in the Supreme Court for $42.5 million plus an amount for damage to his reputation.
Smith is separately suing the Filmnet message board over similar defamation claims, while Smith's partner, Jonathan Nolan, is also separately suing both zGeek and Filmnet.
Merchant of Death, which would have contained an interview with Bout, was likely to be a controversial documentary as its synopsis suggests it is in favour of Bout, claiming he has been arrested on "trumped up charges".
Bout is believed to have been the inspiration behind Nicolas Cage's character in the 2005 film Lord of War. He stands accused of supplying weapons to several nations, rebel groups, the Taleban in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda.
Smith said Merchant of Death was a working title and had no connection to the book of the same name, also about Bout, written by the US journalists Douglas Farrah and Stephen Braun.
Smith has also previously produced several other controverisal documentaries including Fortunate Sons, which examines the 9/11 attacks, the Bush regime and the war on terror.
The attacks on Smith began after he entered a discussion on the zGeek site about the book The Third Truth, which claims the destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in New York was the result of nuclear weapons installed by Israeli intelligence service Mossad.
Smith wrote that "the arguments and evidence presented are very convincing", but the forum community quickly turned on him, claiming he was connected with the publisher.
One user said Smith's company, Myrmidon Enterprises, and his film, Merchant Of Death, did not exist and that Smith was a "nutcase scam artist" who has made "false job postings".
Smith's address was soon discovered and some zGeek users said they would go to his house to "pay Greg Smith a visit".
The insults became harsher once Smith requested an apology and asked that the defamatory material be removed.
In a phone interview, Smith admitted that he used to be a senior partner with Pisces All Media, which published the 9/11 book, but claimed he stopped working there several years ago after he was diagnosed with cancer.
He had employed some former colleagues at Pisces to help him with Merchant Of Death but claims he "had nothing to do with the book" and had "never done any of the things I have been accused of [on zGeek]".
"Rough and tumble I've got no problem with, that's part of normal life interactions, but when what's been said constitutes defamation and affects me or anyone in a professional sense, then that's something that's going too far," Smith said in a telephone interview.
In a phone interview, Brisciani, 35, agreed that the comments on his forum were nasty but claimed that he was not liable because he was only asked to remove the material once legal action had commenced.
"From the original complaint ... I thought they were forum trolls [online abusers] so I basically just ignored it and banned them from the site," he said.
"Once I got the letter from the lawyer the next day, I removed the posts."
Smith and Brisciani's lawyer appeared briefly in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, where the judge ordered Smith to refile his application as it was not in the correct format. Smith said he planned to do this by Friday.
In the original summons, seen by this website, Smith had spelled Brisciani's name incorrectly.
Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online user's lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the case highlighted the cloud of uncertainty that hovers over forum moderators in Australia.
"In countries such as the US, specific exemptions exist to shield website owners from defamation claims such as this," Jacobs said.
"We wouldn't say it should just be open slather, but if a forum owner goes so far as to take down potentially defamatory statements when asked, they probably shouldn't then be liable for massive damages. Bankrupting forum owners who operate in good faith doesn't encourage healthy discussion in Australia."
In September 2007, 2Clix, a software company, sued community website Whirlpool over comments published on its message board, asking for $150,000 in damages and an injunction requiring Whirlpool to remove forum threads highly critical of 2Clix's accounting software.
2Clix withdrew the case a few days later following significant bad press and claims that it was bringing the lawsuit in order to silence its critics.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...4t.html?page=-1
-
While I might have been the one to bring it up, I do note that Evan took it upon himself to create the thread - hardly making it 'my' proposal en toto. Framing the debate is one way to control things.
Peter,
Please be cautious on how you phrase certain things. That almost sounds like you are accusing me of deliberately trying to control the debate. I know you would not do this, as you can easily see that I have asked EVERYONE to have their say, and specifically said it is not a vote to change the rule in a specific way but simply to indicate member feeling as to the necessity of examining what changes might be required.
Thanks!
-
-
Please leave the personal comments out of this thread; let's discuss the pros and cons of changing the rule, our opinions on why it should or should not happen.
Thanks!
-
I'm going to be away during the Apollo 11 period (at an Apollo 40th anniversary celebration) so I won't do a day-by-day for Apollo 11. If you are on Twitter, you can get an excellent coverage of Apollo 11:
http://twitter.com/ApolloPlus40
I will, however, cover two points regarding Apollo 11 that always get asked: The Program Alarms and the LM fuel.
The Program Alarms
During the descent, you can hear a call of "Program Alarm 1202" and "1201". This meant that the LM's Primary Guidance and Navigation System (PGNS) was reporting an "Executive Overflow". Simply put, it was saying "I've got too much to do! I'm going to dump everything except my primary stuff".
The first question was do we need to abort? In the Mission Operations Control Room everyone looked at Steve Bales, who was responsible for that section of the spacecraft. This was not an alarm they usually encountered or practiced for. Bales, however, did recognise it. During a simulation run it had occurred and they had aborted the landing. In the debrief the SIMSUP (Simulator Supervisor) had berated the controllers for that decision. As long as the alarm was not continuous, they could still land. Bales had felt very embarrassed during that simulation and not forgotten the lesson.
"We're... we're GO on that alarm!" he reported.
Despite a similar event (the 1201) occurring later, the landing could go ahead. But what caused it?
It turned out to be an unexpected switch setting. The LM rendezvous radar - used for an ascent - was on, where it was supposed to be according to the checklist. It was decided to leave it on, ready for an abort situation. Since the radar was not actually transmitting, this would not be a problem. This was not quite the case though. The computer programme was still trying to calculate the rendezvous parameters. Since the radar was not on, some of the parameters it was using for these calculations (an angle and distance) were zero. The computer was trying to divide by zero... an impossible task, and one which was taking up a majority of the computer resources. This was resolved in subsequent missions by amending the switch setting.
The Fuel Quantity
There is a lot of confusion about this, with people believing they only had seconds of fuel left when they landed. That's not true. To begin with, there was a little more fuel they they thought; the fuel sloshed around in the tanks and the sensors got a false reading. This was corrected in later versions by putting baffles inside the tanks (my old P-76 had the same problem, the fuel gauge used to move around a fair bit!). So when the fuel quantity light came on, there was actually more fuel than they thought. The quantity light call started a 94 second countdown. You can hear Mission Control call "60 seconds" and "30 seconds". This was NOT fuel remaining though; it was a countdown to what is known as a 'Bingo' fuel call. They were counting down to a decision point, where they had to land within 20 seconds or abort now. So there was the 30 second call, and they landed 13 seconds later; they had 17 seconds before they needed to make an land-or-abort call and were not running out of fuel.
-
BTW, this shouldn't just be between Peter and myself; I think most posters know our respective positions.
What are other peoples opinions?
What about the lurkers? Please comment.
Thanks!
TV Interview with Conspiracy Researcher Bart Sibrel
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted
That's Ralph Rene. He died in 2008. Lots of fruitcake claims, like the true value of Pi was being hidden from us.
He claimed to be an engineer and physicist, but when pushed for proof admitted he was "self-taught". Made numerous gaffs, all very easily disprovable.