Oh, so on that issue you believe the official story, huh?
Well, if we put a man on the Moon then obviously we should be able to build models that ignore the square-cube laws, right?
I don’t. My scale model of the Apollo 11 never left the lower aptmosphere.
Case closed.
Did Psik fail to notice that in the Scientific American article they mention they created models? They probably were to his specification though.
*weren’t
Everyone knows the reason we faked the moon landing was because we weren’t able to build a model of the actual moon upon which to practice landing.
This would imply that NaturalNews hasn’t.
psikeyhackr, you just broke another irony meter. I think I’m gonna have to start charging you per post on those, man.
In the papers you consistently refuse to read? I dunno, it’s not like this shit hasn’t been shown to you time and time and time again.
You know, on another forum I met a person who was absolutely convinced that 9/11 was a controlled demolition because of what he called “the law of falling objects” - a law in which whenever an object with mass collides with another object of a higher mass, the first object topples over. That sounds asinine, right? There is no such law. Now… about your theory…
That’s two in one post! Damn…
Couldn’t get enough cheese, right? 
The local cheese shop was out of everything.
Not enough holocaust denial articles on NN. Yet.
Not much call for it around these parts.
It’s the single most popular dairy product in the world!
I guess you’re right. I mean, both pale in comparison to Rense, but…
It wasn’t powered by gravity.
Yeah, that is so informative. No explanation or data on the models. Just BELIEVE!
psik
Only if the mass ratio is high enough. That’s why bullets bounce off Superman, but he has to duck when crooks throw their guns at him.
The alternative, psikeyhackr, is that you are absolutely correct and you have single handedly managed to blow the lid off this mass conspiracy of willing murderers, liars and dupes. What’s more, the overwhelming majority of exerts in structural engineering and material engineering have been exposed as fools and rubes by someone with admitedly little more than a middle school understanding of physics and math (read: you).
Before we award you the medal for outstanding service to science, country and mankind, could you share with us your brilliant theory on how it all really went down and why (pun intended)?
Oh, and please use short sentences and simple words for the benefit of us silly rubes.
You do understand, I hope, that gravity is pretty simple to model, right? :dubious:
Unless Newton was gravely wrong, of course, and our equations are grossly in error. Do you seriously think his (and Kepler’s and others’) models of the universe required somebody to actually build a bunch of mini-planets orbiting a mini-sun? The fine art of modeling in such a fashion is centuries old and performed by the same people who developed the physics you claim to understand.
By the way, did anybody else read this and think somebody should trademark “Powered by Gravity”?
(Why do I see a perpetual motion requirement in the future?)
Because psikey will never stop?
Actually, I thought he had already achieved that with the goal posts.
Back up your claim that the models were not powered by gravity or retract it.
You are free to criticize the article for not providing specific information, (although I note that you also do nothing to actually discover what Kausel did), but to declare that the models were not powered by gravity looks like nothing more than an attempt to derail the thread. You might have been correct that the article did not provide enough information, but you are out of line to declare something about how the models worked when you, yourself, state that they are not sufficiently described.
LOL
I was talking about the model of the Apollo.
psik