OT-Apollo moon mission impossible today?

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Bucktunes: [b]Well of course, you all know that we never [i]really[/i] went to the moon in `69. It was all staged and faked out at Area 51! Government conspiracy, you know! :rolleyes: :p :D BTW, in case anyone reading this has emoticons disabled; That last paragraph is [i]sarcastic![/i] :D Peace all, Steve[/b][/quote]LOL! Well there are a few things in the footage which need some explanation: http://batesmotel.8m.com/ I'm not 100% that the US DID go to the moon but I'm not totally convinced that they didn't. I'd love someone to take on and refute the stuff in that web page.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by thisDude: [b]Chip MacDonald said: [quote] If for no other reason than that we need humans off the planet. We have no contingency plan for such a thing, it's absurd. [/quote]proposed by some scientists for a mass exodus to a moon of Jupiter called Io (I think). [/b][/quote]Hmm. Can we send our congressmen there now? Io is mostly molten sulphur and prone to spontaneous volcanic eruptions. Wewus: there was good reason for us to go to the moon. There was no way of knowing if there could have been some sort of strategic advantage to doing so at the time, and I'm sure it was understood that there would be a technology gap brought about by the research - not to mention what was probably learned about how to build ICBM's.... The question is, why did the CIA have a satellite orbiting the moon back in the 90's - the one that discovered there was water there?

[Hippie]

<> It has been proven some of the 'moon hoax' web sites have doctored the NASA photos in their favor. -trying to refute them might be a waste of time. However, the returned moon rocks contain isotopes that are not found here on Earth. The 'moon hoaxers' usually don't bring that to the debate or say something like 'an unmanned probe brought those back'. Also, they are usually selling things at their sites, hmmm, it makes you wonder if their motives are for science or profit. At the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, Neil Armstrong said, 'it would have been harder to fake it than really going.' In John Glenn's memoir he said, (paraphrase)'during those historical flights, Russia had tracking ships all over the world to verify we were not trying to pull one over on them'. The Russians would have loved to embarrass us by revealing a hoax. They never found anything to tell them the Apollo missions did not go to the moon and tons of tracking and interception data to support it. At the time, you couldn't ask for a more critical or well funded 'moon hoax referee'. Matt

[Bucktunes]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]I'm not 100% that the US DID go to the moon but I'm not totally convinced that they didn't. I'd love someone to take on and refute the stuff in that web page.[/b][/quote] [url=http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html]Here\'s your answer[/url] Peace all, Steve

[RandyH]

We will NEVER 'solve all our problems here on Earth' - which is why we should explore space anyway! It's true, NASA disposed of or lost much of the documentation from the Apollo program. They're a government beauracracy, they had a Shuttle to build, and these things happen. If we were to return to the moon though, rebuilding the mighty Saturn 5 would probably not be the best way, and we've got 30 years of technological development to use in crafting a better moonship. As for the 'we never went' people, I think the earlier comment about the Russians watching the whole thing was right on. That stuff is hard to fake today. Watch the dust fly off their boots, or off of the rover wheels, and try to duplicate it. It's not gonna happen. Eventually a telescope will become available that will be able to take pictures of the landing sites, but of course the nuts won't believe that either. Here's a great link: [url=http://www.spacecraftfilms.com.]www.spacecraftfilms.com.[/url] They are taking trips to the National Archives and putting all the NASA film and TV footage from selected missions onto DVD. The multi-disc sets are unedited, and there's lots of stuff that never made it to TV. Highly recommended. Also highly recommended is the series "From the Earth to the Moon" on DVD, which dramatizes several aspects of the Apollo program. This is better if you're not the type to sit through hours of raw NASA footage (aka 'loser'). :-) RandyH

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]LOL! Well there are a few things in the footage which need some explanation: http://batesmotel.8m.com/ [/b][/quote]First picture: shadow length - he's reversed-labeled the shadows. Second picture: (man on the moon) - B) the shadow is not 100% saturated because there is light being reflected from the moon's surface which is illuminating the space suit. C) "fading in the distance" - not atmospheric distortion, but the accutance of the film grain, combined with a non-perfect optical lense, not being able to resolve infinite detail at a distance. D) "structure": there was plenty of scientific test gear set on the surface, or it could simply be the television camera, or any other variety of things. Doesn't mean it was on Earth. E) Hilariously, here the bozo is citing that on Earth an airplane doesn't leave a sharply defined shadow - despite atmospheric distortion effects of inversion layers, etc. - which are absent on the moon. 3, 6 an J) Stars in the sky. The luminosity of the moon overcame the brightness of the stars in the photographic gear used back then. Human eyes are capable of resolving a much great dynamic range of light. K) That is on gold foil, which is reflective; the flag emblem was not. The differing viewing angles alters the relative luminousity of the two difference surfaces. L) This is such idiocy I won't address it. M) Bean's visor is convex, so the lines shown would not be straight lines. N) Here he gives a reason why his point B) is wrong... ?? 7) That doesn't have to be in the sky, but something that was near the camera when the picture was taken, or an internal reflection inside the lense. Circled area 5) You only need a very finely ground powder to make defined lines. Bozo. R) "The letter C" - looks like something written on a photographic plate, doesn't look like it's on the rock to *me*... P) A bright object could reflect off the photographic plate, reflect off the target objective in front of the plate, thereby exposing the plate to appear as if the line is obscured; the definition of the top of the object does not appear as solid as that beneath it. FACTS ABOUT THE MOON: Obviously the film was not placed outside in the lunar environment... VanAllen belt: they were not in the belt long enough for there to be a problem. The metalic skin of the spacecraft provided enough shielding. There are MORE than "millions" of micro-meteorites in space, capable of damaging anything thanks to kinetic energy. Space, however, is a very large place.... 3 stars in video: again, technology doesn't allow for the dynamic range. Blast crater: if they ran the engines up full blast when landing - THEY COULDN'T HAVE LANDED! They throttled down; the moon's gravity is low; the nozzle on the lander was quite large relative to the size of the lander, meaning the surface area of thrust could be distributed quite wide. Geez.

[coyote]

Figured you might like this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20020621/sc_nm/space_asteroid_dc

[Hippie]

[quote]Originally posted by coyote: [b]Figured you might like this: [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20020621/sc_nm/space_asteroid_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=585&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/ 20020621/sc_nm/space_asteroid_dc[/url] [/b][/quote]Whoa, 75,000 miles is close! I think the gov't needs to start sinking some money into not only the discovery of these 90% of close Earth asteroids but a contingency plan if we are in the path of one of them. -Like maybe having a nuclear bomb carring rocket or two standing by on the pad for this type of emergency. We should 'make hay while the sun shines'.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b]-Like maybe having a nuclear bomb carring rocket or two standing by on the pad for this type of emergency. We should 'make hay while the sun shines'.[/b][/quote]Unfortunately, that wouldn't be good enough. For the size rock that came by yesterday it might break it up, but the mass still would impact the earth. Diverting it has to happen. In order to do that, you'd have to have intercept ability well beyond the orbit of probably Mars at least to have a fighting chance. So in other words - an array of self-propelled bombs in a circumferential orbit out beyond Mars. A LOT of them, and maybe you'd even have to make them propelled by nuclear bombs as well to gain the velocity neccessary to make the system work. Actually, automated landing craft that set off bombs nearby, not on the asteroid, to try to change it's orbit is really more realistic. It still has to be done farrrrrrr away. But it's something we HAVE to plan for!

[Hippie]

It seems the tech. is there to do something like 'bumping' these asteroids into a different orbit. Several nations probes were able to rondevous with comet Halley -getting close enough to determine the composition, etc. The problem it seems, just randomly blasting these things out of their current orbit, no one really knows what orbit they may wind up on and in how many *pieces* they will be in. However, it would buy enough time for the next generation to fix it. -A nice little 'gift' for future generations. :D

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] The problem it seems, just randomly blasting these things out of their current orbit, no one really knows what orbit they may wind up on and in how many *pieces* they will be in. However, it would buy enough time for the next generation to fix it. -A nice little 'gift' for future generations. :D [/b][/quote]The problem is the scope of it is so enormous. I think the Social Conscience believes if something REALLY BAD were to come up, we could "send up some nukes and blow that thing up", but *we can't*. We *must* start some sort of plan ASAP; a "wakeup call" on this scale could be total obliteration of humanity.

[meccajay]

Uh....hello, Im no expert on space, planetary travel or anything, but I dont seem to remember ANYTHING significant coming from all this space travel shit other than cell phones, sattelite TV or being able to forcast a hurricane...do you guys?? Sattalites were put there a LONG time ago! So WHY the hell are we so preoccupied with space travel?? Nothing comes from space...period! We just put stuff up there and take pictures with it. What we need to be doing is spending that money on deep exploration of OUR planet, the deepest ocean exploration, whale mating and migration, dolphin sonar, microscopic undersea plant life and so forth. Hell we dont even know how long great white sharks live, or where they go when they arent chasing seals etc. Now, dont get me wrong, I dont know too much about oceanic science either, just what I see from TLC and Discovery etc, but damn we dont know shit about our own undersea world it seams...Why waste ten's of billion's on space exploration when cures for cancer or stem cell technology could be found in a clamshell....so to speak. Oh well sorry for the rant.

[Hippie]

[quote]Originally posted by meccajay: [b]Uh....hello, Im no expert on space, planetary travel or anything, but I dont seem to remember ANYTHING significant coming from all this space travel shit other than cell phones, sattelite TV or being able to forcast a hurricane...do you guys?? Sattalites were put there a LONG time ago! So WHY the hell are we so preoccupied with space travel?? Nothing comes from space...period! We just put stuff up there and take pictures with it. What we need to be doing is spending that money on deep exploration of OUR planet, the deepest ocean exploration, whale mating and migration, dolphin sonar, microscopic undersea plant life and so forth. Hell we dont even know how long great white sharks live, or where they go when they arent chasing seals etc. Now, dont get me wrong, I dont know too much about oceanic science either, just what I see from TLC and Discovery etc, but damn we dont know shit about our own undersea world it seams...Why waste ten's of billion's on space exploration when cures for cancer or stem cell technology could be found in a clamshell....so to speak. Oh well sorry for the rant.[/b][/quote]I can appreciate what you are saying, and like I said in an earlier post, all these things could/should be addressed; I believe humans are capable of multi-tasking. I would also like to point out that ocean science won't mean a *hill of beans* under a 'cosmic winter' brought on by asteroid ejecta. Matt

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by meccajay: [b]Uh....hello, Im no expert on space, planetary travel or anything, but I dont seem to remember ANYTHING significant coming from all this space travel shit other than cell phones, sattelite TV or being able to forcast a hurricane...do you guys?? Sattalites were put there a LONG time ago! So WHY the hell are we so preoccupied with space travel?? Nothing comes from space...period! [/b][/quote]Kidney dialysis machines, CAT and MRI scanners, cordless power tools, water purifiers, hazardous gas detectors, Teflon, artificial heart technology, medical balance evaluation testing, blood gas analyzers, bioreactors, infrared themometers, land mine removal devices, "jaws of life", scratch resistant lexan lenses, composite technology, On and on. There's a magazine devoted to keeping track of all the spinoffs. Not to mention the CCD technology in the stereotactic scanner that was used to see if cancer had invaded my mother's lymph nodes last week (thankfully, not). The rewards of the space program are all around us. No, you can't just reapportion the money and try to get the same results through direct research; it is almost completely serendipitous discovery. Not to mention such a concept will obviously never happen. Unfortunately it takes more than a mere sideways glance to see the benefits of spending money on something that seems on the surface to be superfluous, when the oblique benefits have brought more of a return than anything else we've spent money on in history. Our daily lives would majorly SUCK if you took everything away that was connected developementally to the space program.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Skip the gadgets, my daily life would be a whole hell of a lot better if we could rewind to before DDT and the atom bomb, not dam every river in sight, not cut down all the forests, not poison everything, and just skip all that. This planet has been damn near ruined in the last 60 years. A lot of people come into contact with all this technology when it is used to ruin their lives completely in a war, when all this gets developed. I'd rather take my chances with the asteroids, and skip the nukes thank you. Unfortunately all this damage has been done, and if we were remotely responsible we wouldn't go on to the next thing until we'd cleaned up the collossal mess we've made. As long as money-shuffling is the primary objective, that won't be happening.

[nursers]

[quote]Originally posted by progfusion74: [b] [quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]<> yep, if any part of the computer systems involved are windows-based, i'd say those astronauts are toast! -d. gauss[/b][/quote]I am pretty sure any such systems will be UNIX-based :D [/b][/quote]Obviously it will then run on Mac OSX as it is Unix based :thu:

[Bobro]

[quote]Originally posted by nursers: [b] [quote]Originally posted by progfusion74: [b] [quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]<> yep, if any part of the computer systems involved are windows-based, i'd say those astronauts are toast! -d. gauss[/b][/quote]I am pretty sure any such systems will be UNIX-based :D [/b][/quote]Obviously it will then run on Mac OSX as it is Unix based :thu: [/b][/quote]Close- it is Linux. http://flightlinux.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[Hippie]

Not totally. there is more timber available today than there was in the 1920's. The Cuyahoha river in Ohio used to catch on fire from pollutants floating on top, this has not happened since the 50's. Water quality is better now than 35 years ago. London had such poor air quality from coal burning furnaces many people died when the weather became stagnant. Progress is good and things are better today for it.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Must be my west coast perspective. Things were almost pristine here then. I've heard they've cleaned up lake erie and that, and I'm glad. I can't imagine where you get this info on timber. I would call timber something you can make a 4x12 out of. Sure there's scraggly second growth for the pulp and plywood mills. All the mills in the NW are going under or retooling for tiny trees. A tree takes at least 80 years to 150 years to become big enough to call timber. No way there's more now than 50 years ago, although I know it's boom times for the timber lords who have access now to Siberia. Progress may be good, building bombs and poisoning the oceans, enslaving the third world, none of that is progress. Ted

[Hippie]

<> Last week, I saw a thing on TV about the big American lumber companies. It said, in the 20's the lumber magnates realized their 'gravy train' would soon come to an end from clear cutting and the companies started planting 3 trees for every one cut. Of course, you can't bring back the virgin forests, unless you have 10,000 years on your hands :) , but technology could help in this dilemma. Recently, conservation scientists have developed genetically engineered trees that allow for faster re-groth and higher volumes. They claim to have reduced the regroth time by as much as half and have just begun the research. To me, that is the best of both worlds of conservation and progress. Technology can be a good thing if used properly. Matt

[thisDude]

Ted Nightshade said: [quote] Skip the gadgets, my daily life would be a whole hell of a lot better if we could rewind to before DDT and the atom bomb, not dam every river in sight, not cut down all the forests, not poison everything, and just skip all that. [/quote]I learned to love the bomb. As long as there is mutually assured destruction, there won't be any wars (directly) between superpowers. We'd still be killing each other with sticks without it. :freak:

[artnoiser]

[quote]Originally posted by Bucktunes: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Rog: [b]I'm not 100% that the US DID go to the moon but I'm not totally convinced that they didn't. I'd love someone to take on and refute the stuff in that web page.[/b][/quote] [url=http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html]Here\'s your answer[/url] Peace all, Steve[/b][/quote]Ah crap. Secretely I was wishing the conspiracy guys were right about the faking. There's something really fun about the idea of you knowing that they are fake, and other people don't believe you. art PS: Maybe the russians faked their whole shabang too, and had to cover for the US so their own cover wouldn't blow. :idea:

[artnoiser]

Here's a FUNNY site http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html Can't get anymore obviously parodic than this. art

[Tedly Nightshade]

"Last week, I saw a thing on TV about the big American lumber companies. It said, in the 20's the lumber magnates realized their 'gravy train' would soon come to an end from clear cutting and the companies started planting 3 trees for every one cut. Of course, you can't bring back the virgin forests, unless you have 10,000 years on your hands , but technology could help in this dilemma. Recently, conservation scientists have developed genetically engineered trees that allow for faster re-groth and higher volumes. They claim to have reduced the regroth time by as much as half and have just begun the research. To me, that is the best of both worlds of conservation and progress. " I'm afraid you've been sold a bill of goods, my friend. That's a primary function of TV. In the forest you will often see clumps of fifty or more seedlings, maybe one of which will ever become timber. The timber companies indeed will plant a few starts for every tree they cut, but they will do this with no regard to the season, and they don't come back and water. Try planting a seedling somewhere and see how it goes, see how much care is needed to assure the survival of one. A pine cone has hundreds of seeds in it in hopes that a very few will make it to reproduction age. These seeds will lay dormant for years, only sprouting when conditions are right to give some hope for survival of a few seedlings. Also when you log many nearby large trees, the forest undergoes a massive shock from the exposure to the sun and other elements, where there had been cool quiet moist canopy overhead. The natural cycle of reforestation uses natures scar tissue, brambles and blackberries, to create a mini-canopy where young seedling trees can get a sheltered start, and to check erosion of the usually very fragile humus of the forest floor, deposited slowly over many centuries. This is an inconvienence for the timber industry, so most times they spray a clear cut with herbicides to skip the healing stage of the forest and get to the paycheck as fast as possible. When the paycheck is 100 years away, unless you go turning juvenile trees into plywood, pulp, and one 2x4 per tree, you can see why they do this, although of course it is terribly destructive. In order to avoid violating water quality laws pesticides such as 2,4D are chosen, designed to cling to the soil and not wash away in water. Good thing for big timber that only the streams are tested and not the soil. These massive disruptions of the life of the forest result in massive erosion, mudslides that block freeways, and creeks and rivers too silty to support salmon and other fish. This silt choking the rivers is the accumulation of topsoil of thousands of years, washed away completely in many cases in a single year or two. When you hear "landslide" you should think "clearcut". Now, some areas of the forest get a lot of rain and have terrain that helps check massive erosion, and these areas are likely to grow back very thick indeed after a clearcut, without any trees planted. Where I live is such a place. These "more trees than ever" are an absolute tinderbox, an explosion of rampant dense understory that would never happen with a healthy number of big trees. This is a huge fire hazard, and this year I have spent thousands of dollars having the parts around the house and road thinned out enough to give some margin of fire safety. The BLM, Forest Service, and private timber claims that this is because of not enough cutting in the woods. The fact is that old growth trees suppress the understory thicket (that's how they got all those covered wagons through, you couldn't do that today) and survive the kind of minor fires that sweep through the sparse understory. The sad part is that there is just no money at all in thinning out all this thickety stuff, the only money is in big trees. So big trees get cut, and only token efforts are made to address the resulting thicket, which indeed has many more trees than ever, very few of which qualify as a useful resource. In other places, steep dry slopes in the rainshadows of mountains, the tiny bit of topsoil that took millenia to collect, sheltered by trees, is gone forever, and no trees will ever grow there again, now that there is no shelter to aid the agonizingly slow build up of soil, and no tree needles to suck water from the dawn air. You will not see these pictures on TV. As for the trick quick nursery trees, they provide a far inferior grade of wood than slow growing trees. In fact the trees of the far northern forests are greatly prized- where a tree may only have a two month growing season each year, the grain is tight and hard, unlike the soft inferior wood resulting from fast growing trees like pines and nursery trick firs. Also, the incredible biodiversity of the forest is the only reason it's still there- a small gene pool like the nursery trees is quickly wiped out by disease. The way to obtain disease resistant trees is to let nature do her thing, the survivors reproduce, and pass on the resistant genes naturally to the next generation. There still remain maybe 3% of the original old growth of the Pacific Northwest, an invaluable and unreplaceable resource, the makings of a forest. Mostly they survive because they are in extremely challenging inaccessible places. Technology is catching up though, and these are being cut every day. Many of these trees are 200-500 years old. You don't miss the water, until the well runs dry... Ted

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Ted Nightshade: [b] my daily life would be a whole hell of a lot better if we could rewind to before A lot of people come into contact with all this technology when it is used to ruin their lives completely in a war, when all this gets developed.[/b][/quote]I love technology. I think it's neat. However, people suck in general and aren't perfect; and you *can't* rewind time. At least not yet. As far as living "before all of this technology": there's a good bit of technology in the computer you used to write that post, you know.... Some Luddites have good points, except they want to exclude human decision from the negatives of the process of "society". Reducing the technological implementation doesn't change the people. The *real* problem of our world has nothing at all to do with abuse of technology, but of overpopulation. [qb]As long as money-shuffling is the primary objective, that won't be happening. The return of the investment in the space program is higher than any other expenditure of money or human resources that has ever been made. People were just as barbaric prior to the space program, as well.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] there is more timber available today than there was in the 1920's. [/b][/quote]Limbaugh is hilarious. Who is replanting the rainforests? Who is keeping track of the trees downed for the shopping center parking lots? For there to be more trees post-1920, there would have to be the same amount of land available with trees that was around then (which isn't the case), and it would have to be considerably denser (not likely compared to old-growth forests). THEN you have to presume that all of the trees downed all over the planet by other less enviro-friend countries are carefully being replanted in additional numbers - which they're not. I know it's the apocalypse: I'm presenting a case for conservation to someone named "hippie"... [b]The Cuyahoha river in Ohio used to catch on fire from pollutants floating on top, this has not happened since the 50's.[/b] This one isolated situation doesn't represent anything else at all. [b] Water quality is better now than 35 years ago. [/b] *Try* to find an uncontaminated water source in the U.S. In my town well water has tritium in it, the Savannah river has benzene in it, and the water out of the tap smells like either a sewer or clorine. [b]London had such poor air quality from coal burning furnaces many people died when the weather became stagnant. [/b] True. But now we have Mexico city, places in Russia where the rain is black, and a city in California just recently (can't remember the name) has voluntarily announced that it is a "major contributor to air pollution" so it won't have to pay fines for being a "major contributor to air pollution". Again - it's rare the air doesn't smell like something in my town. We get to pick from sulphur compounds floating around from a pulp mill, the sickly-chocolate odor of burning blood from a meat packing plant, "mystery" smells, an amazing variety of malodorous stench. (blast, just spilled half a box of Kroger bananna nut crunch cereal in my lap (breakfast/lunch/dinner) That aside, CO2 content in the air has been rising relentlessly, we've got birds that can't fly because they're dizzy from the air, oxygen being sold on the streets of some cities, smog alerts - you've GOT to be joking? [b]Progress is good and things are better today for it.[/b] "Progress" doesn't have to be saddled with the negative, just as the negative doesn't have to be glossed over (by "studies" from the phony "think tanks" and "research groups" paid for by Republican contributors) so that those that profit off of it can get off easy with the public. I've only been on this planet for 35 years, but I remember when I was a kid the water didn't smell/taste funny, and the air didn't smell different everytime you went outside, and there were TREES where there is now large expanses of asphalt and construction. Doesn't mean we can't have malls or stick-construction housing, but it does mean we shouldn't be going about it in the completely blythe and greedily ignorant fashion we're doing now.

[Hippie]

<> Very possible, no doubt. The documentary was aired on The Discovery Channel, which I believe was not 'bought' by special interest groups or corporations. Plus, the channel usually is bent on conservation. Matt

[Tedly Nightshade]

It's a tricky business. A lot of time sources like the Discovery Channel or National Geographic that seem bent on conservation, are more bent on staying in business, understandable I suppose. You got to take it all with a great big chunk of salt, and healthy amount of skepticism. One, maybe the only, proven way to get your spiel out there in the mass media, is to tailor it to the agenda of the powers that be- a little public relations for big timber, in this case. That's how to get published, etc. Keep an eye out, you'll see this almost everywhere. Usually you can find the real story in there somewhere. It can be illuminating to read the average newspaper story backwards, starting with the "little unimportant details" at the end of the story, and proceeding to the part everyone reads, the opening paragraph where they set the tone and spin on a piece. Ted

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] I love technology. I think it's neat. However, people suck in general and aren't perfect; and you *can't* rewind time. At least not yet. [/b][/quote]If they could just make a car stereo you like. How did that traumatic part of your life turn out Chip? We never heard.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: [b]If they could just make a car stereo you like. How did that traumatic part of your life turn out Chip? We never heard.[/b][/quote]Geez, it's really quite embarassing. Remember, at the time I thought I had something called "disposable income".... This was about a week before I find out I don't have a place to do business anymore. So, I did end up getting tired thinking about it, and ordered a JVC head unit and the MB Quart RKC116's. I got the stuff the day before my place of employment announced it was going under. So I installed it, was happy/relieved the next day for about an hour before going to work that day, then BOOM! No more work, and I've just spent $350+ on a car stereo I don't have to have. Totally perfect, I should have known. The negative timing in my life over the past 3 months has been exemplary, to the point of seemingly being scripted. On the other hand, the RKC116's sound good, as I thought they would, running flat in the highs. No squirelly filtering effects or strange peaks from eq. I need a sub, but "oh well", I'll have to live with bleeding in the nasty rears a little if I want to get ker-razey. I suppose I could make a baffle plate to stick over the rear deck to make them more of a band-pass type thing? Oh well. So now I have a little guilt-ridden anxiety everytime I look at it in the car: "geez, that's a house payment right there". Just goes to show, you just can't have anything "nice" and enjoy it. It's impossible. There apparently is an inverse relationship to aging and the ability to have a "pleasant" life.