LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-08-2016, 09:06 PM   #76
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308

(Paraphrased) - A rotten rose by any other name will stink just as badly.

Edit (added later): Upon reflection I realized the above response could be easily misconstrued as a personal attack. It was not meant so but instead came from the concept of "stinkin' thinkin'" that so aptly describes self-destructive thought processes. Everyone can slip into a defeatist funk under some set of conditions.

Last edited by enorbet; 12-09-2016 at 05:20 PM.
 
Old 12-08-2016, 09:27 PM   #77
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Arch
Posts: 3,155

Rep: Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362Reputation: 1362
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
Very well, then, sir! My "April Fool's Day challenge" remains! We can still find an original Saturn V rocket; an original command module; an original lunar orbiter; original space suits ... what else do we need?
Approximately 100 billion dollars. Got any spare change?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1
 
Old 12-11-2016, 01:05 AM   #78
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308
Speaking of Major Bux... well, to me, today I was trying to help a Linux newbie with video card selection and I really should've known better as I got deep into the new cards fresh out for Xmas and especially the new Pascal VR-ready cards from nVidia. I am now in lust at first sight of a $400 USD GTX 1060 which has as much ram as my whole main PC - 8GB, but it is 256bit GDDR5 amd I'm posting this crazy lust here because this thread caused me to ponder the path and how much the Apollo program would have paid for 8GB of GDDR5 and I gave a silent salute to those who conceived, R&Ded, manufactured, and used Rope Memory to fly us to the Moon, with special mention of John Glen, Gus Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee. Wow!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grateful Dead
What a Long, Strange Trip it's Been

Last edited by enorbet; 12-11-2016 at 01:08 AM.
 
Old 12-11-2016, 08:58 AM   #79
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,330
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843
Yes, we live in interesting times.

Here's my opinion on this matter, and no, I'm not going to change it:
  1. I do not believe that we now possess the capability to safely convey humans beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
  2. I specifically do not believe that we actually did so in 1969-72, but rather that NASA (for then-extant political reasons which may well have been compelling) faked mission after mission until Congress finally pulled the money plug.
  3. Most disturbingly, today I continue to see NASA clinging to this "legacy" of their past. They produce un-convincing (and, already questioned) "new photographic evidence" to support their 1969 claims, and "scientific data" that is basically meant to convince us all that there are no impediments whatever to human travel beyond the magnetosphere, i.e. "to Mars." Given that (I believe ...) this very agency has lied so preposterously in its past and (I believe ...) now continues in those lies, I do not find the agency's claims today to be credible.
  4. The only conceivable mission that I would authorize funding today is an international mission to the Moon, in which there must be a consensus of the international scientists involved that the multi-national crew will in fact be safe. The technology needed to achieve this, which I believe does not yet exist, will be very expensive and so the cost (and knowledge) should be shared internationally.
  5. "A swirl of bagpipes and a 21-gun salute" in honor of dead astronauts is no catharsis for having sent them to their deaths in the first place. I am quite frankly of the opinion that NASA would do so, just to preserve its "1969 legacy." I think that it would "stop at nothing." This is one reason why I want many nations to be involved in any future missions, and for there to be an international scientific consensus about the safety of the international crew.
  6. I would like to see a formal Congressional (and, international ...) investigation into the original 1969 claims and (re-)tests of all of the technologies used at that time. I specifically want the charter of that investigation to be that it is tasked ... not "to prove that the 1969 claims were true," but rather that every single one of them "was not false." I believe that I know what the outcome will be, and I want Congress to "shove this in NASA's face." Because, unless and until we put this (I believe) charade forever to rest, it will represent a grave danger to and an impediment of future actual manned exploration ... to the Moon, to the Planets, to the Stars.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-11-2016 at 09:00 AM.
 
Old 12-11-2016, 01:47 PM   #80
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308
Surely you must know that is (rather conveniently) not likely to happen. While you and many Americans consider NASA's budget to be "ginormous", at it's most massive (during Apollo) it was roughly 10% of the Defense Budget. The US has abandoned numerous scientific projects like this generation's quantum leap from the Hubble Space Telescope and the Super Collider. Do you really imagine this country, now in vast debt to China and in the middle of the transition from the Industrial Revolution to the Information Revolution is likely to fund hundreds of billions of dollars for a Moon Landing for no purpose other than to continue exploration of a dead Moon at best, or just to prove they can do it again to the few intractable deniers?

Here's an alternative. Since the deniers like you are in a minuscule minority instead of asking taxpayers to pony up for a nearly pointless and expensive trip why don't you book some time at Apache Point to see the laser in action.... OR, how about requesting logs from various radio telescope sites around the world that tracked Apollo (and Mars, Mercury, Venus, and Jupiter missions)?

I sadly doubt you will do so but whatever you do, I suggest you stop leaning on the least objective of evidence, photos and radiation, and go after "the big guns", radar and laser reflection, if you wish to be taken seriously. Otherwise there is no way any seriously scientific person is not going to conclude you are a dyed-in-the wool "conspiracy theorist" in that worst (and wrong) vernacular definition of "theory".
 
Old 12-11-2016, 01:48 PM   #81
Myk267
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: California
Posts: 305
Blog Entries: 13

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Speaking of Major Bux... well, to me, today I was trying to help a Linux newbie with video card selection and I really should've known better as I got deep into the new cards fresh out for Xmas and especially the new Pascal VR-ready cards from nVidia. I am now in lust at first sight of a $400 USD GTX 1060 which has as much ram as my whole main PC - 8GB, but it is 256bit GDDR5 amd I'm posting this crazy lust here because this thread caused me to ponder the path and how much the Apollo program would have paid for 8GB of GDDR5 and I gave a silent salute to those who conceived, R&Ded, manufactured, and used Rope Memory to fly us to the Moon, with special mention of John Glen, Gus Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee. Wow!
Looking at the stats of the computers on Curiosity might be of interest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover) The on board computers are still quite small. I couldn't find any numbers from NASA directly, but a few sites report that the whole rover cost 2.5 Billion. Have any radiation hardened computer components in your case?
 
Old 12-11-2016, 07:22 PM   #82
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,330
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Otherwise there is no way any seriously scientific person is not going to conclude you are a dyed-in-the wool "conspiracy theorist" in that worst (and wrong) vernacular definition of "theory".
As I've already said, I don't think that the deliberately-perjorative term, "conspiracy theorist," has any useful place. It implicitly contains an ad hominem attack, and is basically designed so to be.
  • Skeptic: Someone who questions a perceived truth.
  • Conspiracy Theorist: Someone who questions an official truth.
Personally, I can think of only o-n-e reason why NASA might today be encouraging people to think of that beautiful, enigmatic object up in the sky as a "dirty" thing that we should never, ever want to visit "again."

(And I would very-directly challenge them: "Exactly why are you (institutionally) still holding on to this, as though (forty years later) you could not possibly just let it go?" Have you somehow forgotten what your true mission, for all of mankind,™ actually is?

Are you still "unwilling to share?" Do you still suppose that your citizens are the one-and-only people who wish to reach: "the moons, the planets, the stars?"

- - - - -

Going forward, "first(!) of all," I frankly don't give a damn about 'Apollo.' I most-certainly do not find it in any way necessary to "apologize for this program." Who ever said that doing such a thing was actually a pre-condition to our moving forward in the over-arching goal of scientific exploration beyond our planet? (Who else but: 'a government agency?')

- - - - -

Going forward (and, quite purposely, "leaving Apollo behind"), I think that it makes tremendous sense for us to play our (I think) first "deep-space card" conservatively. Our first goal should be to set up an "International Lunar Station." Our international teams of astronauts would occupy this scientific base continuously and for the foreseeable future.

From an exploration standpoint, the Moon has a lot of advantages. Although it's still "very, very far from Earth," it's a place that we can reach in less than two weeks, and that we can communicate with in less than three seconds. It is "beyond-magnetosphere," but not unreachably far. Although it would not exactly match conditions on a true extra-planetary mission, it would serve as an excellent proving ground for the technologies that will eventually be required to launch such a mission ... and, it might even serve as an advance base for such an effort.

If you're willing to "buy in to 1969, hook, line and sinker," then you might regard El Luna as nothing more than a "47-year-old 'been there, done that.'" But, I don't, and therefore I don't. My viewpoint is that I am still waiting for President Kennedy's vision to be realized. I want to see an international effort take place to make this happen. As much as we can all quite-justifiably be proud of our International (albeit, "Low-Earth Orbit") Space Station, which was "just a baby step," I now very-specifically want to see a permanent, manned, Lunar base.

I want this to be a Congressional pre-condition to any "mission movement towards Mars, nor anywhere else" ...

... and, I want that effort to proceed without any further impediment from "1969."

If (as I think they did ...) it turns out that "some NASA official(s) made a gigantically-bad choice 'back then'," I for one am willing to accept this news, and to forgive them (or, their ghosts). I do not wish to judge them. I wish for us to move on.

I want Moonbase Alpha to be our next official, international, and permanent (i.e. "never to be abandoned ...") goal.

President Kennedy surely would have wanted no less . . .

"Mars can wait. It needs to wait. First, we need to go (back to, or not ...) the Moon."

Which is anything but(!) ... (ahem) ... "a dead, 'dirty,' 'uninteresting' place."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-12-2016 at 02:33 PM.
 
Old 12-27-2016, 04:31 AM   #83
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308
Just FTR whatever word one chooses and however one spins the definition one thing remains solid - Anyone maintaining doubt once there is clear, repeatable solid evidence to the contrary has much in common with Chicken Little and prefers to appear on solid ground even while they are in freefall.

The rope memory that ptrompted this thread and all the other difficult and expensive hardware of Apollo was made for a reason, to do a specific job. It did that job and the knowledge won by the risk is essential to what progress we have made both in unmanned and future manned missions. To continue to deny this in the face of solid evidence is foolhardy in the extreme. This is not merely my regarded opinion but that of thousands of experts all over the planet, then and now.
 
Old 12-27-2016, 04:50 PM   #84
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,330
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843
There is little value in belittling the holder of a contrarian opinion ... especially when a manned mission (and therefore, astronauts) stands in the balance.

Nevertheless, I think that a very simple and conclusive remedy to the entire problem could be obtained if all future funding for NASA was conditioned upon their completing this very simple challenge: "Do, before April 1, 2017, exactly what you did in 1969, and with exactly the same equipment."

We can still lay our hands on an original Saturn V rocket, an original lunar module, an original command module, original space suits, and (god help us ...) envelopes of Tang. The service buildings used are still out there on the Cape.

Therefore ... you have three months to get the job done. "There and Back Again." Which should be very easy because you did it half-a-dozen times already. (And remember: you are required not to change a single thing!)

Yessir, we're gonna go back to "Tranquility Base," carrying our golf balls. But, this time, we're gonna do it on Facebook. We expect for you to very quickly find a way for our young astronauts, carrying their iPhones or their Androids (their choice) to "post" and "tweet" and "text" the entire time, while thousands of telescopes all around the world (and in the International Space Station) observe.

(You can also expect that the Russians will be orbiting a very high definition camera in lunar orbit the entire time. Hey, they wouldn't miss this ... and why should CNN/NASA be the only one to get the great pictures?)

All you have to do is to exactly re-create everything that you said was true about the first Apollo landing. (And you must fire several magnesium flares on the moon, creating easily-verifiable flashes that can be seen from Earth, and which must be verified by observers in at least six different countries.) We will also require you to fire four sets of similar flares in-progress during your flight to and then back from the Moon, and we require to see those flashes in precisely the correct spot in the sky. (In 2017, we will know.)

(Merely ...) Do that, and the funding is yours. (Hey, no sweat. It's easy, right?)

Don't do that, and you'll never get one red cent again from the American people's coffers.

If you fail to complete the mission start-to-finish before April Fool's Day, 2017, then your funding is forever cut off.

"If anyone dies, or even comes back sick, or gets radiation sickness etc. thereafter," 100% of your funding is cut-off forever. Likewise, if the astronauts (if they survive) bring back photos and so-forth (from their phones, y'know ...) which don't exactly match 1969, your funding is cut-off forever.

Only if, within the next 90 days start-to-finish, you can exactly reproduce "what you did," with exactly the same technology and in exactly the same way, "on Facebook, and with dozens of other nations independently verifying what you have done," will you ever get another measly dime of public money.

But, after all, if our "billions of dollars of public money" were, in fact, well spent in 1969, then this should present no interesting challenge to NASA whatsoever. "It's 'old hat,' right?"

Deal? Great! Get started ...

---
Oh, yes, and one more thing: "Stop sending probes to the Moon!" Stop exploring the Van Allen belts or anywhere beyond. Quit spending money on space suits. All of this money is wasted, because we already know that "whatever worked for Neil Armstrong & Company ... worked." We already know that man can not only survive but thrive (and shoot golf balls and drive dune buggies) in Deep Space. We therefore do not need to spend one red cent more on these things. "That 1969 space suit was good enough for Neil, so it must also be good enough for you. Just put it on, and shaddup." We already know that no radiation shielding is required, therefore we will not spend any money on shielding, nor on any "conspiracy-theory (of course) research" which might dare question our 1969 triumphs. Just get into that spaceship, make sure your cell-phone is charged up (Facebook is watching, and you have tens of millions of fans!), and let's go. After all, we already have more than a half-dozen flawless missions to prove that the whole thing really works.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-27-2016 at 05:16 PM.
 
Old 07-27-2017, 04:52 PM   #85
lax luthier
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: Santa Barbara Co. Ca
Distribution: Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The bigger the lie, the more believable it is, to the pr - hyptnotized sheeples

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Holy Crap sundialsvcs I'm so astonished I'm hesitant to ask are you a moon landing denier? If so you really need to do some checking both on provable facts and the dubious value and likelihood of any such fraud involving so many people actually remaining uncovered long before actual launch.

As for facts do you realize that Universities all over the world have the coordinates of the reflectors placed on the moon in specific locations for the purpose of accurate laser reflection? Are you aware that recent robotic missions have photographed the moon rover and it's tracks? There is much, much more but those two should certainly be sufficient as impossible to fake, not to mention damaging in the extreme if it was possible and actually faked. Assuming that time could heal that wound is akin to assuming that actual undeniable proof that the CIA had JFK assassinated would do no harm. It is one thing to suspect high-level conspiracy but quite another to have it/them confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is simply no way such a fraud could remain uncovered for long, and that was a huge concern during the Cold War propaganda/PR race. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Russians had uncovered "the truth"?. Do you imagine they didn't try?
"These are not the dupes you are looking for" Nasa outsourced the reflectors delivery.
 
Old 07-27-2017, 04:54 PM   #86
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,330
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843
Is there any particularly compelling reason to resuscitate this thread?

But I did like this recent addition to Aulis.com: The Apollo Myth: A Hindrance to Human Space Exploration.

Because, IMHO as well as that of the author's, that now is(!) what Apollo has become, nearly fifty years later. And a very human-dangerous hindrance, at that.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 07-27-2017 at 05:07 PM.
 
Old 07-27-2017, 08:29 PM   #87
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308
I suppose no appeal to reason is ever going to stop you guys from your intractable denial, but could you kindly then just stay out of the way and stop linking tin-foil hatters? Not one of them addresses the issue that Apollo missions did take off and were followed by radar stations all over the world yet nobody provided a good answer to

1) Where did they hide if they didn't go to the moon?
and
2) How did they fake the radar telemetry data of whatever it was that did go behind the moon (where data was no longer received) and re-emerge into radar view on schedule and in location if it wasn't the Apollo craft? Wow that was a neat trick, eh?

and wtf does "outsourced the reflectors" mean and to whom, aliens? roflmao
 
Old 07-27-2017, 10:20 PM   #88
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,330
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843Reputation: 2843
As I said in an earlier post in this now-frosty thread, adjusting for the time, NASA could easily prove its point ... say, by September 1, 2017.

We just grab original Apollo space suits, a Saturn V rocket, a lunar lander, and a command module, all from existing museum displays. The Houston control center is still there. Grab three willing astronauts, and just do, "once more for the Gipper," what had become oh-so routine by the mid-1970's. Don't forget your golf balls.

The only thing we'll have to very-quickly invent is how to keep the astronauts' iPhones charged up during the flight.

Do it one more time, and do it within the next six weeks, using o-n-l-y the computer and space-flight technology that was available in 1969. You will immediately silence all critics and demonstrate how we ought to be able to expand into a nice lunar base by this time next year.

This simple repetition will conclusively prove many things. Such as, for instance, that solar radiation outside of Low Earth Orbit is, in fact, no problem at all. People can bounce around the moon and play golf, having landed there in an over-glorified telephone booth, and it will be once-and-for-all proved to be just as "routine" as it was said to be in the 1970's when Apollo was abruptly cancelled.

Because – if not ... – this means that it's not quite so "tin-foil hat" as you suppose. It means that we do, in fact, face technical obstacles to human exploration of space (beyond LEO), that we have not solved ... either in 1969, or yet today.

I believe that the point made by the referenced article is, in fact, very sober and very relevant. NASA is being hamstrung by its refusal to own up to a Cold War political fantasy, and it is also losing its position and credibility in the increasingly-international effort to "go where no man has gone before." The Russians are now the nation which has the only reliable re-entry vehicle capable of human transport: the Soyuz. They didn't drink the fantasy-juice. Instead, they did the science. No nation on this earth believes in Apollo ... except U.S.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 07-27-2017 at 10:21 PM.
 
Old 07-29-2017, 02:25 AM   #89
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,409

Rep: Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308Reputation: 1308
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
<snip> They didn't drink the fantasy-juice. Instead, they did the science. No nation on this earth believes in Apollo ... except U.S.
while your 'solution" is obviously a fantasy since there is no way museum pieces are going to get off the ground even if anyone was foolish enough to trust hardware stagnant (and missing) now a half century old, the above statement is far easier to test. It has never been true that the US was alone in believing in Apollo. It has been pointed out here many times that not only was the history (and film) making little outpost in Australia an important confirmation but nations, including Russia, who had everything to gain by a US failure (it was called The Space Race for a reason) were forced to admit it actually happened because they followed it/them.

Considering a few US citizens are hardcore deniers I imagine similar "conspiracy theorists" exist in most countries but absolutely NOBODY in the know anywhere buys this "Hoax Theory". You can argue about radiation levels and photo possibilities till you're blue in the face but there were ways then and now to objectively deny or verify that despite any hypotheticals, it nevertheless did happen. There now exist photos from orbiting Moon surveyor satellites of the landing sites from several nations that show corroborating data such as rover tracks. The highest resolution ones to date can be found here -- High Rez Surveyor Photos of Apollo Site --
 
Old 08-04-2017, 07:12 AM   #90
lax luthier
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2017
Location: Santa Barbara Co. Ca
Distribution: Ubuntu 16.04 LTS
Posts: 27

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
"I'd like to buy the Moon a Coke"

Yes the thread should continue. It is what it is.

I would possibly give the mythbusters a miniscule amount of consideration as a valid source of any commentary were it not for their smirking, cutish displays of pompous self agrandization, which make me feel like puking in the absence of an atmosphere and with reduced gravity. The mythbusters? Are you kidding?

One of my favorite "lunar" artifacts is the coke bottle seen in a faux moonscene, which was aired on Australian TV "news" broadcasts prior to the scene being pulled prior to the next and subsequent broadcasts of the cropped image being shown in other locations.

I'll bet the Coca-Cola Corporation would have loved to have been able to glom on to that goof "Coke, the first and only soft drink enjoyed on the moon". Throw in a space helmeted belch to underline the pleasure.

What was Nasa's farfetched explaination for that one? Cosmic ray alteration of the photo? "Uh, er, uh, oh man, isn't that a paradox?" "Now what?"

Re-examination of the evidence should be done by all parties in this embrolio for the sake of objectivity
 
  


Reply

Tags
apollo, conspiracy_theory, lander_denial, moonlanding


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
apollo dependency prob ALInux Linux - Software 4 08-22-2005 09:38 AM
Problem with Apollo and Gnutella corey-ross Linux - Software 1 01-25-2005 10:18 AM
CUPS, hpijs, and an Apollo P-2200 goofyheadedpunk Linux - Software 5 07-17-2004 03:55 PM
Apollo printer crash crashmeister Linux - Hardware 0 10-30-2003 03:55 AM
Apollo problems... JapanFred Linux - Software 2 06-10-2003 02:00 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration