TheTideMustRoll

This is legitimately one of the worst "blue blood" rankings I've ever seen. No world exists where Alabama is not #1 by a sizable margin. Both Ohio State and Michigan are ranked too high. Miami at #4 is comical. Clemson #12? Oregon #16??????? This is a bad, bad list.

Reality, why can't you be this great?

quote:

---

Hand the refs a way to just award a team a win

---

LSU fans everywhere just woke up screaming in a cold sweat. :lol:

Augusta National - a group of ultra-capitalists running their organization in the most uncapitalist way possible.

"What's the report on the merchandise sales for this year's Masters?"

"Well, all items sold well, but one item - a yard gnome - sold incredibly well, so much so that there were very long queues forming just for the opportunity to buy one. We could probably charge ten times more for them than we currently do and they'd still sell out. Should I raise the price and increase the order size for next year?"

"Absolutely not! Cancel them completely and never sell them again."


I'm not complaining, mind you, I just find it funny. :lol:

quote:

---

Pretty sure this is the holding cell at Kyle Field

---

Pictures of girls on the wall. Does not check out.

quote:

---

just like the bama football fans they seethe with jealousy of

---

ftfy

quote:

---

The days of Goofy Gus lucking Auburn into a good season every few years by grinding a randomly good RB's knees into dust beside a team of upperclassmen are over. They'll be lucky to win 6 games.

---

quote:

---

The SELENE probe operated from 2007 to 2009. How did it prove that the photos and video were 100% real? You say it was because of the terrain. This ignores that we had already been in orbit around the moon, and Russia had landed on it multiple times by 1969. If NASA was clueless about the environment and terrain, how did they choose landing sites

---

This is what I assumed your response would be, and I'm sorry but all it does is show that you do not have a firm grasp of the history of lunar exploration or how planetary surveys actually work. You are correct that we had some idea of what the lunar surface was like in 1969 - we could say that a given area seemed rugged or upraised, or that it seemed flat and relatively smooth, but we could not say that this feature of the moon was 300 meters above lunar "sea" level while this other area was 30 meters below. We had only a very general idea of the topography of the surface. One of the purposes of some of the earlier Apollo missions (10 is a very good example) was to get close-up photos of some of the proposed landing sites to give them a better idea of what to expect precisely because they did not have that level of detail. But even with those photos the best they could do was to say, "Yes, this area seems pretty flat and level," when choosing the final sites. So, in your world where they are building moon sets on sound stages to fake the landings, they might have known generally where to put hills and depressions, but they would have had no idea how high to make the hills or how deep to make the depressions - that information did not exist at the time. What the SELENE evidence shows is that the photographs from the lunar surface - again, many of which show astronauts walking on the moon - conform to the actual lunar terrain to a degree that would not have been possible to achieve artificially at the time of the mission. That kind of detailed information about lunar topography did not exist until SELENE provided it decades after the fact.

quote:

---

Bill Kaysing, a former Navy officer and a technical writer for Rocketdyne, who manufactured the engines for the Saturn rocket, is the one who originally made the claims.

---

Here's a direct quote from Bill Kaysing:

"The astronauts were launched with the Saturn V. Then, in order to account for their disappearance, they simply orbited the Earth for eight days and in the interim they showed these fake pictures of the astronauts on the Moon. But on the eighth day the command console separated from the vehicle and descended to Earth as, of course, was shown in the films."


Now, you tell me: could the Soviets not have absolutely known if, instead of going to the moon, the Apollo missions launched and then just orbited the Earth for a few days?

quote:

---

Again, I don’t think we are arguing whether we have landed on the moon. We have. As those pictures prove, there is junk and rover tracks on the moon.

But, we have landed vehicles and remote rovers on Mars too. That doesn’t prove we have landed a man on Mars.

---

My guy, if you'll read my post again I said to pay careful attention to the SELENE evidence, which showed that the terrain in a photo sent back from the moon in 1971 turned out to be a very close match to the actual terrain as mapped by the SELENE mission in 2008 despite that information not being available at the time. A photo sent back from the moon in 1971 that shows an astronaut walking on the Lunar surface.

But honestly, I could take you to the moon and show you the landers and the flags and the footprints, and you would tell me that NASA could have put all that stuff there remotely to trick people who came to the sites years later. You claim to be "keeping an open mind" while at the same time refusing to accept that the evidence clearly shows that people have indeed walked on the moon. You aren't being open-minded, you're being contrarian. They are not the same thing even though most contrarians claim that they are.

Remember, this not a case where the US is claiming to have done something simple, easy to fake and difficult to disprove, nor is it a claim that other countries are unlikely to challenge. This is a case where the US is claiming to have done arguably the most incredible thing in the entire history of humanity. To fake this would involve not only sending manned missions to the vicinity of the moon, but depositing landers on the moon, conducting all of the scientific experiments that the astronauts were going to claim to have conducted, gathering moon rocks and other data points, leaving tracks and reflectors and all the other detritus to make it look like people had been on the surface, and then building a soundstage and filming the entire fake surface excursions - excursions which were hours and hours in length - in a way that would seem like a completely believable simulation of the moon's gravity, so believable in fact that despite being in a highly-charged war for national prestige with the Soviet Union, the Soviets would not only not challenge that the landings had occurred but would shut down their own manned lunar program in response. Think about the effort, expense, and risk required to do all of that. It would be simpler to put actual men on the moon than to try and pull all of that off, and they did it not once, but six fricking times.