conspiracy theories

[JohnnyGT08]

1.5psi per sqaure inch....how f***ing big was the lander? more than 75 inches in diameter....holy cow you are dumb

 

The size of the lander is irrelevant. It's the force of the thruster. That's just like saying that a fighter jet couldn't possibly fly, because it's thruster nozzle is soooo tiny compared to the plane.

 

And I already answered the important part. The size of the thruster.

 

...the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica)' date=' which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch...[/quote']

[one bad bg]

ok since you guys dont seem to get how dust falls. heres another one for you. the right side of the cross hair is explained with his sunscreen being black.....what about the bottom of the crosshair?

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7B9t07eI/SK_McQp9dvI/AAAAAAAAAG0/Hkp-ZP6_Vic/s320/crosshair7.JPG

[one bad bg]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7B9t07eI/SK_MF0X5-rI/AAAAAAAAAGM/6ytXPbtZwCM/s320/crosshair2.JPG

[JohnnyGT08]

The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them, making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. This is basic photography.

[Brady]

If you want to talk about conspiracy theories ... behold the theory of lucky charms!!!!

 

(courtesy of Patton Oswalt)

 

All right, let me tell you the whole conspiracy behind lucky charms, man.

 

So, all right, look in the bowl for-- okay, see the little crunchy wheat things?

 

And they have all the vitamins and minerals, right?

 

Yeah, well, those are shaped like little-- you'll notice, take a look.

 

Yeah, they're shaped like little crosses and little fish.

 

The ichthus symbol that the greeks drew over their doors to signify they were christians so the romans wouldn't kill 'em, and then the little marshmallow things--and

 

They sure are, but they have no nutrition.

 

They're just sugary and colorful, and those are shaped like pentagrams and moons and clovers: Traditional pagan symbols.

 

So the propaganda that lucky charms is trying to lay on you is that the path to christianity, WHICH IS NO F***ING FUN, But they will give you vitamins and keep you regular, and the path to paganism, which is colorful and bright and sweet, but it will rot your teeth and make you fat.

[LosAngelesLGT]

Are you really THAT F*CKING STUPID?!!!! Do you realize that Area 51 was the home of the SR-71, the Stealth Bomber, stealth fighter, and several other experimental aircraft that were HUGE technological advantages the US held over other countries when they were developed?!!!!!

 

You've obviously NEVER been around any kind of facilities that work on confidential government contracts for security or defense, or you would realize that even in PRIVATE ENTERPRISE you have extremely tight security measures that aren't HALF as sensitive as an ACTUAL MILITARY R&D TEST FACILITY!!!!

 

There is nothing I hate more than ignorance and stupidity, so please forgive me for getting worked up over this ... it's just in my blood.

 

^Pretty lame actually. Roll out of the wrong side of bed or what? The only thing you should hate is smug people acting like they know more than they do - particularly when they open with something asshat. SKUNKWORKS is where the SR71, stealth bomber, fighter and whatnot were developed. It has existed in many locations and while it did exist at area51 it started in Burbank and now is at area10 in Palmdale and has been for more than 20 years. Area 51 has been many things over the years, not just an aviation test and research facility. Stealths were also tested out of Edwards and Langly back in the day. Really... Palmdale is home of the Stealth Fighter as it was designed at Skunkworks, Palmdale. I DO AGREE that a lot of aircraft have been developed and tested there but Skunkworks is the creator of the aircraft you are a fan of and Area 51 has been used for weapons testing, military training and many other things in addition to flying around.

 

Do I know everything about area 51? HELL NO, but I am not going to call someone stupid over it.

 

I have been to a classified military and nasa test site when I was a kid. Once the largest pressurized windtunnel in the world - my grandfather was one of the primary engineers who shot the monkey into space It is not that classified anymore . I also worked for Lockheed for a year and a half when I was in college.

[one bad bg]

The times it looks like an object is in front of the crosshair (because the crosshair looks blocked by the object) is when the object photographed is white. The crosshair is black. Have you ever taken an image that is overexposed? White parts bleed into the film around them' date=' making them look white too. That's all that happened here; the white object in the image ``fills in'' the black crosshair. It's a matter of contrast: the crosshair becomes invisible because the white part overwhelms the film. [b']This is basic photography[/b].

 

ok, then how come all of this crosshair isnt covered

 

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Cross%20hairs%20over

[JohnnyGT08]

Because the part that isn't, isn't white, and isn't bleeding into the black.

[Brady]

ok since you guys dont seem to get how dust falls. heres another one for you. the right side of the cross hair is explained with his sunscreen being black.....what about the bottom of the crosshair?

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lRr7B9t07eI/SK_McQp9dvI/AAAAAAAAAG0/Hkp-ZP6_Vic/s320/crosshair7.JPG

 

Those are easy. First, go take a photography course and get a clue.

 

Second ... as a photography expert, I'll try to break it down for you.

 

A lens does not have perfect focus of everything in the field of view. The amount of area that is in focus is called "Depth of Field"

 

Now, if the lens had a perfectly infinite depth of field (impossible), everything would be in focus, and the crosshairs which were BEHIND the lens (Between the lens and the film) would show up perfectly clear in every photo, because they would block ALL light from the film in that plane.

 

But that's not how lenses work. You have a little bit of scatter.

 

So all points of the lens are focusing light from a source to a point on the film.

 

It would be similar to being at a baseball park at night and suspending a balloon 10 feet off the ground. The area right below the balloon wouldn't be dark even if you had lights above the park. Because the lights around the perimiter of the park would illuminate the ground (the ground is the "film" in the camera).

 

In areas of the image where the light is lower (in this case around 18-25% reflectivity), the crosshairs show up better, but where the light source is intense (60+% reflectivity), the light gets to the film and washes out the crosshair.

[one bad bg]

and how come this crosshair isnt covered by the white

 

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit2.jpg

[JohnnyGT08]

See the above post. Understand it.

 

Then ask a more intelligent question.

[Brady]

and how come this crosshair isnt covered by the white

 

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit2.jpg

 

It's not covered ... it's washed out. And if you look closely, you'll see the crosshairs begin to wash out where the light reflects most brightly through the crosshairs.

[one bad bg]

See the above post. Understand it.

 

Then ask a more intelligent question.

 

ive noticed you respond with some bullshit answer every time you cant explain something.... /convo till tomorrow...i need sleep.

[Brady]

ive noticed you respond with some bullshit answer every time you cant explain something.... /convo till tomorrow...i need sleep.

 

Umm ... He did explain it ... then you asked another dumb question, but my very complete explanation already explained your bullshit stupid question. He was saving himself the energy of repeating the whole thing.

 

What am I missing here?

[JohnnyGT08]

ive noticed you respond with some bullshit answer every time you cant explain something.... /convo till tomorrow...i need sleep.

 

Bullshit question = bullshit answer.

 

I had answered your question already, and you asked the same one again.

And then it was explained to you in more depth.

 

What more could I do?

[JohnnyGT08]

People like Mr. DB here are the reason for my sig.

You may want to heed my warning before you get sucked in.

 

FML....I got sucked in. :spin::spin:

[NSFW]

There's one problem with nuclear weapons.

 

Mutually assured destruction.

 

Pretty much, you can forget about nuclear warfare in your lifetime, or even your children's lifetime.

 

I'm not too worried about a nuclear WW III, but I do worry a bit about a single nuclear attack, or a small number being exchanged. MAD works when the people who control the nukes have lots to lose, and think rationally, and would put a return address on the package.

 

Consider North Korea and Iran. If either of them provided a nuke to Bin Laden and delivered it by boat to Florida, LA, or Haifa, how would we prove which of them was responsible?

 

NK's leader clearly doesn't give a shit about the welfare of his people. He falls into the "nothing to lose" category. And he's basically got South Korea as a hostate - anyone strikes him, he'll reduce South Korea to rubble. Would it be worth it? I could see him providing a nuke to terrorists just for the money, he seems to need it.

 

Iran wants to take Israel off the map. They're working on nukes. Eventually they'll have the ability. How long until one of their more "hard line" leaders decides to use it? Again, by boat, for deniability.

 

I hope to grow old without seeing any of this happen, but I am not confident that I will.

[NSFW]

... well explain this, no crater, and no dust on the feet or legs of the lander

 

No crater because they landed on rock.

 

No dust because the wind blew it away. No, wait... the opposite.

 

There's no air. So dust would fly outward from the blast just like gravel. It would not swirl and settle. There would be no turbulence in the surrounding air (because there is no surrounding air) to stir up nearby dust and suspend it. The thrust would just blow dust away from immediately below the rocket, and that dust would follow a ballistic trajectory and land far away.

[dudeondacouch]

http://www.aww-kittah-aww.com/up/files/3425/thisthreadisgay.jpg

[HipsterDoofus]

This thread has the most dumb in it, I think ive ever seen. Congrats DB, youre an idiot.

[nemo]

This thread has the most dumb in it, I think ive ever seen. Congrats DB, youre an idiot.

 

this.

[CTATV]

... it's just in my blood.

 

Just like Teh AIDS

[CTATV]

Oh and my grandfather designed the film the used on the moon missions & helped develop it upon their return to the earth... so that conspiracy is not trueci

 

(thats not a joke, he worked for Kodak and was the head scientist on the team)

[I 5EAT Turkey Clubs]

No where to hide.

 

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/most-hilarious-conspiracy-theory-ever

 

This may also have something to do with the recent overturning of CA gay marriage laws....

 

***The real conspiracy: Nearly all the believers in these theories don't have jobs. Proof: They were up all night bantering back and forth about it...Communists are more than likely paying One Big DB and others to take down the USofA

[CTATV]

I think they put cocaine in astroglide and thats why people keep ending up gay...

 

 

http://freestuffcanadaguide.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/astroglide-free-sample.jpg + http://www.michaelshouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/image-of-cocaine.jpg = http://www.gaypornblog.com/archives/buckshot-gay-porn-pic-hard-studies-DVD.jpg