alfalfa

Rocca di Mezzo, and roads around it. A friend here in California has a house there and set up this week long ride for us. Such great roads!!!

did a thing week before last -

Holy crap! Bucky took pictures!!

just got back from the MOA Rally in Oregon and doing a little BDR. We also did PCH from Bodega Bay - north. There might still be some road closures south of San Francisco. The scenery along the road is incredible, even if you've seen an ocean before. But, you have to really take into account the good twisty roads that lead to it. There are a bunch! Check out www.pashnit.com for a good list of the best California roads, plus hit me up and i will help you take full advantage of it. if you are staying along PCH, bring lots of $$. Gas is pricey, as well as hotels. Camping is a better option. Another portion along the coast, lightly traveled - Lost Coast

Now, THAT's a bike show!!

such sad news about Pete. I saw his FB post and just figured it was simple surgery. I really dont think posting pics of ugly vaginas is showing the right respect, tho.

we go thru the same water cycles here in Southern California. Fortunately, the past two years have brought lots of rain and have restored most of the reservoirs. It also restored a historical lake that closed several highways west of Bakersfield. The problem with our SoCal weather cycles is that the droughts come on slowly and last for 7-9 years, then end dramatically. That allows people plenty of time to convince themselves that it was "never like this before".

Police (NASA) wouldnt let them

Your choice in motorcycles makes you seem normal, so I will go with that!

The lead designer said it would take 3 rockets larger than a skyscraper, 16 years before they did it and that is all the evidence needed to claim it was a hoax? Ignore all the other pictures, video, papers, books, etc, & etc. This one, outdated, off the cuff comment was all that is required to debunk things. I really would like to cut into someone's mind to see why they choose the path(s) they do. Most of em claim that the govt is too stupid to brush their teeth, but at the same time they have the tools and smarts to pull something over 4 billion people. Thank god for the 200 peeps that keep us truly informed! What does it mean to you that the atmosphere extends beyond the moon? Is it that you can breathe on the moon? Try that and get back to me? Hey, did you know that the moon has gravitational pull on the earth and vice versa? If that is true why cant we just walk to the moon? I mean we have gravity on earth and i can walk almost anywhere here. This statement might give you a better understanding of what atmosphere is out there at moon doggie distance: "This work allowed the team to map the geocorona's extent and get a handle on the region's density. They found that the geocorona is denser on Earth's day side, because of compression from solar radiation. But "denser" is a relative term: There are just 70 hydrogen atoms per cubic centimeter (0.06 cubic inches) at an altitude of 37,000 miles (60,000 km) on the day side and a mere 0.2 atoms per cubic centimeter at the moon's distance, the new study reported." And, do you think its possible that the comments from Obama and Nasa (the links dont work, by the way) might be referring to the situation at that moment? i.e., we no longer had Saturn rockets, only the shuttle. The shuttle was designed for low earth orbit work and didnt carry enough fuel to get to the moon. That is currently being changed with the SLS system and Starship. (of course, fodder for future conspiracy "theorists"). The one big issue with the internet is that anyone can create a site that looks professional Especially a writer of fiction. Try this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories Major point of that (and most other conspiracies) is that how do you successfully control the hundreds of 1000s of people involved in the "hoax" to keep quiet. Friend i worked with instantly found conspiracies for EVERY news item that came up, for the last 20 some years. I always wondered what makes someone go that route, versus using a little common sense when deciding. But, since I really enjoy banging my head on the wall, let's keep this going! I know i wont change you and i really know you wont change me some more info re: Van Allen Belts - Related Why are the Van Allen radiation belts such a huge concern for space exploration in 2023 when we have already gone to the moon a bunch of times and the astronauts were not harmed? Because the Apollo astronauts passed through them briefly, no more than four time total, in a disposable spacecraft with a dinosaur for a computer. Passing through the Van Allen belts was not then and is not now a serious threat to the health of the crew, so long as they don’t make a habit of it. A much bigger concern is the radiation exposure for the rest of the voyage. During the Apollo program, crew dosimeters tracked the accumulated exposures throughout the mission. The average radiation exposure for an Apollo astronaut was approximately 0.18 REM over the course of the mission, with the highest recorded exposure being 1.14 REM by one crewman on one mission. Of that, only a few tenths of a REM came from passage through the Van Allen belts. Knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic Anomaly where doses are much higher even in LEO, planners designed the translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the worst of the radiation, passing quickly through only the weaker, outer edge of the outer belt, and over the side of the Earth shielded from solar flux.

well, that right there proves we never went Guess it was a good thing he hired the right people between 1953 and 1969, eh? He was right about the three rocket part. Just got the size wrong.

My first foray into computers was using a General Automation Spc 16/65. the 2-1/2 megabyte hard drives where the size of a current desktop computer cabinet :). Trying to remember if the 16 was how many kb of ram it had to execute programs. To start it, there was a panel key sequence you went thru to get it to boot (instead of just powering it on). ahhh, the good old days

Try searching for reasons things did happen, or did work at the same time as looking for the conspiracies. (Not a dig, just help <G>). Given that i am an old nerd and lived thru the original three space programs (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) its funny to think now that future generations would question they did happen. Meaning, they would have included rebuttals for all the "facts" out there today. The Lunar Lander was made of the lightest materials possible as weight is a penalty during space travel. You can not stand in one, on Earth. On the moon, however, the cold, lack of atmosphere and low gravity all came together to make it stiff enough to support people and equipment. So, cardboard? doubt it. lightweight, thin materials? definitely. The Van Allen belts? think those were a surprise to trip planners? Naw. They had already been to space, been around the moon, and actually (fortunately) didnt have the internet with the millions of lines of bullcrap "facts" leading them wrong. They had scientific, verified info. Available in books (remember those?) that have stood the test of the scientific method. If you want a better mind exercise than googling moon myths, take some time and figure out how you would go to the moon. What spacecraft, what protection, what food, fuel, etc. It was done in the 60s, with none of what we have today. Computers were huge and had low capabilities. No one had sent men up in rockets before Mercury (ok, the Russians, but during the same time frame). Then, sign up at Blue Origin, or Virgin Galactic, save up your $$ and go up yourself to see if it is real. Lastly, ask yourself why would we fake it? what would be gained by faking it? Whatever you do, dont watch Capricorn One

So, where is it stated that the man coming down the steps is Armstrong? In the second picture, the presence of wheel tracks says that this is one of the later landings, with the moon rover. I watched the landing on tv, in real time (well, real to me) in 1969. The first pics of Armstrong were taken by a tv camera mounted on the lander. They were very grainy and inverted and had to be righted so you could understand what you were watching. Here is one person's response to the question who took the pictures. that dovetails with what i remember watching: "Neil did; It was a camera mounted on the side of the LM. Just before he climbed down, Armstrong pulled a lanyard to deploy the camera package which mounted a low quality, slow scan, TV camera. The slow scan is why there was ghosting on the image as the background image was not totally overwritten by the moving image of the astronauts in the foreground. When you watch the entire video of Apollo 11’s time on the moon, about an hour, you can see them walk up to the camera and change the lens a couple times. It’s obviously attached to the side of the spacecraft. They were their own camera crew with the lander acting as their tripod. What conspiracy theorists don’t understand is that this was the Cold War and the Soviets had every reason to publically expose any fake as they wanted to show the US space program was inferior to their own. They were watching carefully, following the spacecraft by radar and radio direction finding. They never had any objection; the moon landings were real by every test they could imagine." Some other info: "On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed with two cameras, but only one went outside — carried by Neil Armstrong. That explains why nearly every photograph of an astronaut on the surface during that first landing is of Armstrong crewmate Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin. Armstrong had the only camera for nearly the entire two-and-a-half hours the two walked around the Sea of Tranquility. An official NASA document describes how the space agency's public affairs department, scrambling to satisfy the world's media for photographs of the historic moonwalk, suddenly discovered an embarrassing oversight. "They started looking for the best shot of Armstrong," according to a transcript included in the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal. "Soon they were looking for any shot of Armstrong." Aldrin, who was busy setting up lunar experiments, did briefly take over the camera and remarkably, snapped only a single photo of Armstrong. The camera "just wasn't part of what his job was at the time," Levasseur says." Lastly, the question as to why the film didnt freeze (or melt). There is no atmosphere on the moon. The film would only melt if exposed directly to sunlight, which it wasnt. It was sealed in a vacuum, protecting it from temps. "This is a crucial detail, since on the Moon there’s no significant atmosphere that can be heated by the ground and therefore there is no way to transfer heat from the ground to the films. Vacuum is a very good heat insulator, as thermos flasks demonstrate. In a vacuum there is no heat transfer by conduction or convection, which are the main heating and cooling processes on Earth. There’s no air to warm or chill objects by contact." Again, when researching, ask both questions and look at both answers. Otherwise, i bet you will tell me there is no Santa Claus, too.

Also - https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/06/25/yes-the-apollo-moon-landings-really-did-happen/?sh=444a07dd6a8f But, of course the article and photos provided could be fake. Hence my question as to what do you need for proof that would give you 100% confidence that we did land on the moon?