From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 20:01:40 2007 Paul, If it is the second time that I have had to ask you, then why do you not [desist] persist in maintaining arguments like military-style extreme rehearsal and precautions? It is common knowledge that Armstrong made one and only one attempt at flying the thing, no matter how many were shipped to NASA. ["It's not what folks know -- it's what folks know that ain't so". Mark Twain] There simply were not any extensive rehearsals, as you suggested. As for the crash being a "failure in the attitude control motor," that may or may not be the case, but the fact is that Neil (not Neal) Armstrong could not control it on his one and only attempt to do so in a far less hostile and unforgiving environment than being a quarter of a million miles away with no atmosphere. A USAF pilot being willing to take such a risk without the military precaution that you yourself alluded to? Very stupid. Very stupid indeed. Almost totally unbelievable and incredulous, wouldn't you say? Of course it's unbelievable and incredulous -- that's why so very very very few people believe your stories. If your house is silent, then perhaps you ought to get out a little. Speak to people. Get to appreciate that the real world is strangely different from the utopia of everyone being nice and truthful that you might imagine, though you clearly only "learn" that which you want to "learn" and which you already believe to be true. Neville I do get out. If did not mix with normal folk regularly, there is a very faint possibility that I might begin to doubt and distrust everyone. That I might begin to believe that there are vast ethnically and/or financially well defined groups of people enslaving us. That the Devil is waiting in every shadow to ensnare me. There is almost no end to the evils which I might begin to imagine if I didn't get out. You have to open your eyes, Paul. As Jack did. As I did. Yes, I spent years believing the Apollo claims and teaching them to others. As for the monitor men, you say, "More particularly, even if they had been so instructed, you give no hint of why this is suspicious or menacing." Actually I do. I am trying to get you to question something. It was you who were making out that so many people could not be misled or dishonest. I was trying to get you to appreciate how easy it is to mislead people, that's all. So then, your are saying that you manufactured this little assertion just to influence me rethink my position? "Or it might just be that the operator was required to make a judgement along with the observation. Computers are still not good at that. Are they not? It's a simple IF-THEN DO statement. Neville if this is so, then GU 3.0 should not have been released with only one of the planets (other than Earth) actually working. As they were all engineers how do you know this? , Clearly I am demonstrating my trust in my fellow man. my guess is that their most important function was to report problems to their section supervisor so that rapid action might be taken when required. No one got up and rushed around, though. Pretty standard stuff really. We could have another look at the "real" footage, but oh I forgot, NASA destroyed it. Along with the plans for the Saturn V. Along with the plans for the lunar lander. Oh well, that's probably standard procedure as well, isn't it? I suppose I must address this or you'll accuse me of avoiding some damning 'truth'. Do you preserve every financial, legal and social document pertaining to your life? Can you show me documents which would prove to me that on the night of 1969 Jan 22 between the hours of seven and eleven thirty in the evening, you were not loitering in the vicinity of the home of an aquaintenance with whom it is known that you had recently had an altercation? I thought not. Then that indicates that almost certainly you were so loitering and with malice aforethought. See how easy it is? Oh and if that date is covered, I've got lots more. Finally, you say, "bearing in mind the state of computer technology in the 1960s," yet you will not accept that this technology is also to be believed as getting a craft to the Moon and back, looking after the life support systems, telecommunications systems, navigation, temperature, ... By your own standards and admission, is this not a trifle hard to accept? Of course it's not hard to accept. At the same time as Apollo was going on, nuclear submarines were successfully navigating the world not getting lost, controlling their environment, communicating (sometimes), maintaining life support. So were intercontinental aircraft with very small crews. So were a thousand other endeavours being successfully executed and all with the same or lower level of technology. A good example of what can be achieved with little technology is the wartime bombing of the USA direct from one of the Japanese main islands using little more than paper, string, little bags of sand and a barometer. Oh, of course there were also several bombs. I worked the last 17 years of my career in an environment saturated with microprocessor based systems which did quite complex tasks. I also wrote applications in assembly language for processors of the era. I have a reasonably good appreciation for what can be done with little if you try hard. It is easy to believe that other much smarter folk could achieve much more. Are you aware that even today, the Mars rovers run on 80C85 microprocessors? This processor archiecture dates from the middle 1970s. It still works. One reference = http://www.xnumber.com/xnumber/Microcomputer_invention.htm and yes I know Apollo considerably predates 1975. All that shows is that microprocessors were not used, thus other means were employed. (The first microprocessor was released in 1971). Neville. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo From Neville Jones Sun Sep 2 20:44:49 2007 -----Original Message----- From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:19:26 +0000 (GMT) Concerning the matter of 'physical reasons' why an Earth based observer should be believed over a -- for instance -- Mars observer however, I have a problem. You don't actually have to be there to determine what you will see. Agreed: http://www.geocentricperspective.com/page9.htm I presume the main point here is that if Earth is not the Centre of Everything, then chaos results. Check the accompanying pic -- there is no chaos to be seen. I suspect that your model is in error. Neville. oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Paul D ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Attachment:
Centres.JPG
Description: image/pjpeg
