heh its Mjasishew
http://img138.imageshack.us/my.php?image=buran4mt5ij.jpg

Rokosowsky i dont belive in your dark prediction,economic and military recovery will continue and more will be built.However Russia will never have the Nuke-power it had in 80s.It will be stronger than French as for China it will fall behind them in future.

I am a semi-retired Chartered Engineer who worked for a Research Council connected with Astronomy. I have done design projects on spacecraft components and because of my knowledge and experience, I am now hired to give public lectures on Astronomy several times a month.

Almost invariably, some one asks me to prove that the Moon landings were not a fake..

Ok.I am an engeneer of metalurgy and lets try this…

The first proof involves radio and Doppler shift. Without going into all of the technical details about moving transmitters and Doppler frequency changes, take it from me that the spacecraft signals COULD NOT be faked and MUST
have come from the Moon..

OK. so it could have been a robot rover moving around the moon.

Also, the robotic technology at the time was so crap it was easier to land men than to try to simulate signals moving about the surface of the Moon using robots..

And if the capability existed to soft land robots on the Moon then it existed to land men.
.

You contradict yourself.I am sorry but i cant seem to answer you to the double negations u have said here.Armstrong tried in earth atmosphere with experimental craft to land but had to eject in matter of seconds.It was easier for robot to land.If robot could not land in vacum of space the human could not too.Harriers have computers for vtol.

The second proof involves optical corner cubes which were left on the moon for laser range-finding. Any amateur astronomer with a thousand or two pounds spare can easily rig up a laser and telescope and reflect a light beam off the corner cubes – so SOMEONE must have left them there!.

So again-a robot.Russians left them too u know?!

The camera panning up in later missions was indeed remotely controlled from
Mission Control on the Earth – as any proper reading of the technical data will tell you..

Mission control-Hollywood!!!

All the photographic “artifacts” can easily be explained.

Why don’t all you conspiracy theorists apply Occam’s Razor?-SO what!

……and don’t get me started on UFO’s!!!!

Sorry to be a downer but I do get annoyed at people who cannot be bothered to understand the technical details before claiming ridiculous theories.
Exactly we are talking about details that dont fit but you dont like it,and start to dismiss everything…

It was much easier to send robots [without ,food ,watter,oxygen,heat exchange sistem,radiation shield ,added weight of 3 humans to the craft,….]and remote control them from earth.
Counter-conspiracy theorists do contradict themselves lots of times.

No any tungsten rod, no programmable detonator, no possibility to shhot against ground target. This is AA missile with seeker copied from Strela-2M.
Even launchers box is the same.

And no electronics warfare.
Yes you are right mister Gremlin,i am made a mistake.Some iranian guy in another forum talked about this things and seemed to know a lot.But like u said internet is full of crazy wacko’s.

The same argument applies still. If the moon footage is obviously faked, why didn’t Soviet scientists notice it? They would have a vested ideological interest in revealing that the landings were faked. Yet they somehow didn’t spot that “there were no stars in the sky”, or that “shadows were not parallel”… Could it be that, in fact, all the arguments put forward for it being fake are complete rubbish from beginning to end, with NO basis in science?

Are u shure?There were russian scientists who said that also,but were silenced by the regime too.There is a chance if was faked the evidence isnt 100% convincing and with all that media hype in the west at the tim ethe russians would have lot of problems…you had to have a camera at the moon landing site to convinse people if it was faked or not and if you showed it even then US. government and people would say “this is russian propaganda,blablabla…”-I think u would be one of those people,too!-Do u get the picture now.Russians didnt want the to make waves,at the time.

The ministry said the “advanced missile” could also be used for “electronic warfare”. -What kind of electronic warfare??…Not likely.
Cloudy day was used because of spy satelites i supose.

Hey,thank u very much for that TsAGI picture,it looks just like Picaso made it!If u have a one with experimental flanker with flat nozzle i would appreciate it very much.
You say modified su-47 and u probably right,others say something weird is being done under “Final Flanker” programme.Reducing rcs of flanker has been published so far in lot of articles but this would be a step to far agrred,however Mikhalkov because he has big pride wants to get something into air by 2007 and i dont see how it would be possible/?!Also in your pictures we can see a round nozzle why is that with 2 stingers on the sides i dont think it could rotate in horizontal axis a few degrees.So why not use a flat one?Somebody suggested it could be used with fly-by-wire to delete vertical stabilisators? And final question why was Mig-Yak delta wing with-“black widow” type engine intakes-proposal denied it looked very good at least on paper?Especially superb Yakovlev proposals for LFI!?Didnt Indians get some cooperation from Yak-Lfi for theirs LCA?

agreed but—-
40kgs of HE will take out a radar antenna… 10kgs will blow an antenna over with a near miss…

well i dont know look at AS-11 and adder side by side AS-11 has 145kg warhead and 50km range.
http://img133.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kh583dn8xa.jpg