Pittsburgh Pirates: Apollo 20- Scary as Shit - Pittsburgh Pirates

Jump to content

  • 12 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Apollo 20- Scary as Shit Winter's New Alien Fascination Rate Topic: -----

#22 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:26 AM

View PostGideon Clarke, on 02 November 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

Thanks! I'm thinking it's a couple more formulaic jokes and a few google image searches away from being a cracked.com article.


Definitely a big finish with a twist. Solid indeed.

And the Apollo 20 thing is a hoax. Not that I actually mind Winter continually bring these things up. As strange as it makes him sound through the written word, at least he isn't afraid to put it out there.
CRIM
0

#23 User is offline   Uber Bier Mensch 

  • Bulldog Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,787
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:34 AM


"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer." Abraham Lincoln
0

#24 User is offline   Dave Kerwin 

  • Bulldog Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,775
  • Joined: 23-July 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

That dude is hilarious. Tyson that is...
0

#25 Guest_u0007890_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 03 November 2012 - 12:47 PM

I wonder what it's like to live life seeing conspiracies at every turn. Winter reminds me of Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory more every day.
2

#26 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:36 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

The part in bold is what I was referring to from the beginning. Even by the 1950's, nobody seriously thought there were other advanced civilizations in our solar system that had originally evolved there.





Then prove it, Crim, or at least give some good evidence supporting your point of view, as I have done for mine. This is the type of response I'm talking about re: the mainstream scientific community these days: Immediate dismissal because it doesn't fit their preconceived POV.


Because Vandenberg AFB was not capable of launching a Saturn V rocket in 1976, nor was it capable of supporting any sort of manned launch at that time.
CRIM
0

#27 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:59 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Even the skeptical Wikipedia disagrees, and it only took me about 20 seconds to find, sir.


Keep reading dumbass.
CRIM
0

#28 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:55 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

1. Dumbass? Stay classy Crim.

2. You said that the base never had the capability of launching manned missions; I quickly showed that you weren't correct about that. Live to fight another day.


That's not what I wrote. Keep reading. Start with my sentence above, then move on an read the entire sentence in the wikipedia article you copied from.

If I end a sentence with "sir" yet still mock you like you did to me, does that make it classy?
CRIM
0

#29 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:44 PM

So for the rest of the board this is what I wrote:

"Because Vandenberg AFB was not capable of launching a Saturn V rocket in 1976, nor was it capable of supporting any sort of manned launch at that time."

In the full sentence from wikipedia that Winter just took a few words from, it said the following:

"In 1972, Vandenberg AFB was chosen as the western launch site for Air Force shuttle launches. Use of SLC-6 was approved in 1975, and re-construction of the former MOL launch facility occurred between January 1979 and July 1986 as SLC-6 was rebuilt to accommodate the space shuttle."

If construction began in January 1979 and was completed in 1986 - keep in mind, no shuttle ever launched from SLC-6 - there is no way that lanuch complex could've sent anything up in 1976 other than a Titan IIIC rocket, which never launched from VAFB because they cancelled the MOL program and never finished construction of SLC-6.

There are a lot of other reasons why there's no way Vandenberg could've launched the mission, but the reasons above are the biggest ones.
CRIM
0

#30 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:14 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

If you consider statement of facts to be "mocking" you, then I guess you better get used to being mocked.


You mean partial facts, like they decided upon VAFB in 1972, and ignoring the fact that actual construction began in 1979.
CRIM
0

#31 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:38 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

If you say so, Crim. Your claim was that they had no manned launch capabilities in the 1970's. My point is that they clearly had the capability of doing so, or they wouldn't have been chosen for a western Space Shuttle launch location.


Dude, just read what I wrote, it's only a couple of posts above. I say they didn't have it in 1976. Those were my exact words. The post is still on the site. I even re-quoted it.

How can you attempt to miscontrue something that is in plain English?
CRIM
0

#32 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 05:39 PM

View PostCRIMHEAD, on 03 November 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

Because Vandenberg AFB was not capable of launching a Saturn V rocket in 1976, nor was it capable of supporting any sort of manned launch at that time.


Seriously, is this quote not clear enough for you?
CRIM
0

#33 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Quite clear, and I believe incorrect. I don't think the base would've been chosen as a Space Shuttle launch site if they didn't have the capabilities of putting men into orbit. And as is, they put a ton of Titan IIIC's into space, which were only a 1/3 the size of a Saturn V, but were by far the biggest boosters of the day.

If any place outside of Cape Kennedy had the capability of putting up a Saturn V, it would've been Vandenberg.


They chose it as the build side, dude. It wasn't complete at the time. KSC was the only place capable of putting up a Saturn V, which is why it was the only one that put one up. It was also the only one to put up a Titan 3C. Vandenberg didn't have heavy launch capabilities period and not sure they still even have the operational support capabilities to support a manned flight period. There are also a ton of other factors as well with that particular site.
CRIM
0

#34 User is offline   Dave Kerwin 

  • Bulldog Veteran
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,775
  • Joined: 23-July 12

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:43 PM

Could they have launched from a Russian site and communicated with Vandenberg? I don't think that makes it or breaks it (this possibility just might be more difficult to disprove). None of the sources of information can really be trusted. All parties involved are biased and those not involved dont have access to NASA records or raw images of the far side of the moon.

I'm interested in the issue but don't get too entrenched in either view. I think winter's statement that in these cases some aspects are true and others are false is the most useful assumption to work from.

I think the notion that technology and intelligence have advanced exponentially in our civilization is well-founded, and another civilization with ample time free from extinction-level events in their environment could easily be far more advanced than us without having existed for even eons more.

I basically just think there's no good reason to rule out the existence of life elsewhere in the universe or even life that at least traveled through our neighborhood at some point in the billions of years since our planet is thought to have existed. We've sent probes to places we couldn't dream of reaching. I find it totally plausible that earlier human civilizations had technologies or knowledge we would consider advanced but which was lost. At the very least I find the idea greatly entertaining and have resided to never knowing anything for certain.

Still like to consider this shit every once in a while.
0

#35 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:48 PM

The only reason to ever use VAFB is for specific types of space flights, so no.
CRIM
0

#36 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:48 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Titan IIIC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Titan IIIC was a space booster used by the United States Air Force. It was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL., and Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.



Winter, seriously, just stop it. This is a topic I know quite a bit about. You tell me the Titan IIIC that launched from VAFB. I'll give you a hint. There isn't one because they never had the capability. They were going to use it for the MOL and they killed the program.
CRIM
0

#37 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:41 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 03 November 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

I just think it's interesting that on one hand, you make this big stand about Wikipedia being absolutely correct about the year 1979, and then when I find another Wikipedia link that again contradicts another one of your points, you simply claim it's incorrect.

Well by that reasoning, couldn't we also reason that they aren't correct about the 1979 date? You see where I'm going here.


I have no idea where you are going here. 1979 was a stsrt date. It could've been off by 10 years and they STILL would not have had SLC-6 ready so the POINT is that if it's even close, there's no way they had the capability in 1976. The first shuttle was going up at the end of calendar year 1986, although I know they hadn't come up with full solutions for some of the challenges of the location.

Dude, you can believe it all you want, I'm just telling you that they didn't have the capability out there at that point in time. You don't have to believe me, you don't have to believe wikipedia, you don't have to believe Richard Nixon, you don't have to believe the thousands of workers they laid off in 1969, you don't have to believe Henry Kissinger, you don't have to believe the citizens of Lompoc, etc. That's up to you, man. Just trying you give you some information you may have overlooked.
CRIM
0

#38 User is offline   crosscuttersno1 

  • Bench Manager
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,209
  • Joined: 17-November 08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central pa

Posted 10 November 2012 - 12:47 PM

What I believe gives most credibility to anything like this is the fact that we have never gone back in nearly 40 years. For an agency desperate for attention and therefore money, one would think that going somewhere, even the moon, would be a great way to accomplish that.
Failure is the key to success.
0

#39 User is offline   Ma13tt0 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 14,368
  • Joined: 16-November 08
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 November 2012 - 01:23 PM

View Postcrosscuttersno1, on 10 November 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

What I believe gives most credibility to anything like this is the fact that we have never gone back in nearly 40 years. For an agency desperate for attention and therefore money, one would think that going somewhere, even the moon, would be a great way to accomplish that.


Weren't they planning to and then Obama cut it.
"Penguin and ma13tt0 vindicated" - PF82 12/12/12 8:35 PM
0

#40 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 10 November 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

By the way, for those that think the United States would not be capable of maintaining a secret astronaut program, they already did, and it's been proven and confirmed by history.


I can't imagine anyone on this board would think that.
CRIM
0

#41 User is offline   CRIMHEAD 

  • Manager
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,451
  • Joined: 16-November 08

Posted 10 November 2012 - 10:21 PM

View PostWinters in Holland, on 10 November 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I thought you said it would be impossible to have clandestine launches anywhere outside of KSC.

Did you check out the newspaper headline in the link that Monarch posted?


Dude, I'm not going to continue to go back and forth with you if you don't at least have enough to respect to read what I wrote. Second of all, I'm not quite understanding what the big deal was about the newspaper headline was. It was a launch that was not announced. Probably one of dozens if not a hundred. Big deal.
CRIM
0

Share this topic:


  • 12 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic