Remember When Evel Knievel Was The A Living American Superhero?

Submitted by: fancylad 2 months ago Lifestyle

[PICS] There is no one like Evel after he died in 2007. He was an artist of a daredevil. He pushed boundaries and took us along with him. Between how he used to hype his next stunt, and his incredible jumpsuits, he was my version of a superhero. Superman and Batman were still two dimensional. Evil was the 3-D real-life thing.
There are 48 comments:
Male 1,205
The man did have balls of steel. I lived in Clearwater FL where he had a house (some where in the vicinity) and I would run into him at some of the local watering holes what a self important ass. Did buy the house a few drinks though so cant fault him for that.
0
Reply
Male 2,423
You went outside and got your bike.  You found some concrete blocks and some wood that became a rickety  ramp.  You hit that thing as fast as you could sailing through the air like a fucking BOSS!  If you stuck the landing, you turned around and did it again.  If you didn't stick the landing, you got up and scraped the gunk out of your road rash and did it again.  Because you were Evel flipping Knievel today baby!
0
Reply
Male 1,879
Evel Fucking Knievel.  I remember when he died, it was a sad day.  A man like no one today, much like our early astronauts, who are becoming fewer as well.  We need a revival of adventure and exploration in our world, not this war between ourselves again.
1
Reply
Male 1,906
kalron27 maybe war was revived because they realized they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it?  i mean 50 years since we went back? 50 years?  When we found out how to fly we were all flying within 50 years.  When we found out how to use computers, we were all using computers within 50 years.  But going to the moon?  "oh, we did that already, no point doing it again"... yeah, right.
0
Reply
Male 300
monkwarrior ....Seriously ?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
punko well look what happened, we war more now than explore space.  Most people are wondering why we didn't have a moon base by now.  Even more are wondering why they want to put a base on mars, when the first logical step would be setting up a moon base, you know, to test building and living in a habitat much closer to home, rather than farther away where one mistake means certain death.  It's all speculation of course, but something is definitely up with space exploration that smells fishy.
0
Reply
Male 300
monkwarrior Until there is a commercial reason to have a base on the moon, or on mars, there isn't a solid reason to be there.  When heavier than air flight first was developed, no one took it seriously.  It was only when folks found a way to make money from it, did it become widely accepted.  Satellites were rare, until folks figured out to monetize the technology.  Now there are far more private satellites than gov't ones.

We are approaching the point where private space flight is financially viable.  Ditto for private space stations.  Before I die,  I expect to see a private space launch to a private station.

0
Reply
Male 1,906
punko Uh, they are planning to put pioneers on mars  so the obvious logical step is a moon base to test that.  Not doing that is like building a raft that can cross a lake and expect it to cross the ocean.  It's a common sense step to first build a moon base
0
Reply
Male 835
punko You just have to understand that monk is a conspiracy theorist. Monk, how about you explain the footprints on the lunar surface that amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes? How did they fake those? Unless you can, shut the hell up.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat you've already proven you're spoon fed by your TV man, so it's no wonder you also judge like your TV tells you to.  Seriously, look at you, mocking like your TV teaches: "oh how do you explain x", something that you can't prove yourself!  

Also, show me one person who can see the footprints on the lunar surface with their telescopes and i'll show you a liar.  Why? Because unlike what your TV spoon feeds you, the magnification to see that would require a telescope about 200m in diameter, that doesn't exist.  But don't let facts interrupt your daily doze of media fodder that makes you feel so high and mighty over your fellow man, but sinks you into the pit of excrement the crowd feels is 'normalacy'.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1389655/moon-landing-45th-anniversary-how-spot-apollo-landing-sites.jpg?w=720&h=623&l=50&t=40
There you go, a picture of the moon, taken from earth, showing some of the things left behind, and some of the tracks left by the astronauts' movements. A picture taken by an amateur astronomer, not by NASA, or any other government agency. Its really amazing what you can find with Google, isn't it? Of course, I'm sure that you'll just call this a lie, too.

0
Reply
Male 1,906
There you go

???

You did not show that at all.  In fact, if you had even looked at the image details up in the top left hand corner of the image you posted, you would have seen it was taken with the LROC.  That's short for Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, not even remotely close to what..

amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes

..,  nor is it ..

A picture taken by an amateur astronomer

.., but was indeed a picture taken by NASA

Time to turn off the TV, dude. You're right, Its really amazing what you can find with Google, but what the TV is spoon feeding you is just not jiving with facts.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Wouldn't matter if it was a picture I had taken myself, you would've still called fake.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat Nice try, but the fact is you didn't even back up your initial assertion that amateur astronomers can see that on the moon.  Even in the face of the fact that telescopes on earth can't see that, you lied to make your assertion.  So it's safe to say your further assertion, thinking you know me, is just further showing me and anyone else that anything else you have to say on this topic is just you being a sore loser.  Better luck next time though.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2016-11-21_5832f59c761cf_fracaMax.jpg
https://maximusphotography.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/posidonius.jpg
https://maximusphotography.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/lacusmortis.jpg 
No, there is no equipment in any of these photos, but they are certainly detailed enough to see if any were present at the locations depicted in the photos. Taken by an amateur astronomer in Romania, with a 355mm 'scope. Tell me again about how an amateur astronomer can't see that much detail? I can also link you to some pictures that show the landing sites that were posted by Chinese and Russian space agencies. Why would they show pictures with American equipment in them? Especially Russia, since the US beat them to the moon. Wouldn't it make sense for Russia to post pictures without the American equipment in it? How does this fit into your conspiracy theory?

0
Reply
Male 835
whosaidwhat Nothing?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat Sorry i didn't see your comment until just now.  Again, what you stated:

Monk, how about you explain the footprints on the lunar surface that amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes? 

None of your 3 pictures showed that, why are you so intent on grasping at straws?  Please, before you argue your pictures, research them (and fyi the Posidonus crater 'footprints' aren't footprints at all, if they were it would be a giant's footprints).

Respond with:

footprints on the lunar surface that amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes

As you stated.   Otherwise please save both of us the time and admit you were wrong, or take your own advice:

 Unless you can, shut the hell up. 
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior As usual, you are only citing the parts of my comments that suit you, and ignoring the rest. I stated quite clearly that "there is no equipment in any of these photos", but you clearly ignored that part. I guess I wasn't clear enough for your small, easily distracted mind, when I didn't specifically mention no footprints. I simply stated that the last set of pictures I linked were detailed enough to show equipment if it were there, but you, again, chose to ignore that part. These pictures are also amateur pictures, taken by a private individual in Romania, with a 355mm telescope; another point you chose to ignore. I've simply disputed your claim that "the magnification to see that would require a telescope about 200m in diameter, that doesn't exist". Now, I don't know if you made a typo, and meant to say 200 millimeters, instead of 200 meters, but I've debunked that theory by showing you pictures with sufficient detail to see machinery, taken with a 355 millimeter 'scope, which proves that not only are 'scopes larger than 200 millimeters possible, but are in the hands of amateur astronomers. If you truly were trying to say that it would take a 200 meter 'scope, then, again, I've debunked that theory by showing you pictures with sufficient detail to see machinery, taken with a 355 millimeter 'scope, which proves that it doesn't take a 200 meter 'scope to see that much detail. Since you don't want to see that part of it, I'll reiterate for you that no, there is no machinery, or footprints, in those pictures, but they are certainly detailed enough to see any, were they present in those locations. One last point I'll leave you with: what about all the Ham operators, who happened to have been private citizens, who listened in on the astronauts' radio transmissions from the moon? Before you try to claim that the transmissions they were listening to didn't come from the moon, keep in mind that they were using highly sensitive, finely tuned directional antennas to listen in. With antennas like they used pointed at the moon, they wouldn't have picked up terrestrial transmissions, unless it was being transmitted from only a few miles away, and it would be extremely unlikely for the government to have that many transmitters, that close to that many people. Not to mention all the foreign governments and Ham operators listening in. Same for a satellite-based transmitter, it would've taken dozens of them to have one in the right spot for each person listening in to be pointing at one. How would they even know ahead of time which Hams would be listening in, to know where to place such transmitters? Have fun trying to debunk that.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat If you assert "I linked were detailed enough to show equipment if it were there" why not simply provide a picture of an amateur astronomer here on Earth with their telescopes showing it there, instead of a huge block of text? If there is none, why didn't you just email the guy and ask him to do it for you, for the record?
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Aaand, as usual, you break down in the face of logic. This is the best argument you can make when offered information that debunks your views? Nothing I didn't expect, though. How about some proof that the moon landing was faked? I've given you information that shows it to be plausible. Not an absolute truth, but simply plausible. And you start to break down and resort to school-yard tactics, screaming "I know you are, but what am I?". How about some proofs of your side?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat so you emailed him and got pics to share?
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior As usual, once again, you refuse to play your own game. I've offered you information that makes the possibility of a moon landing plausible. Not concrete proof that it did happen, just something to make it plausible. Said information happens to prove your earlier statements as completely false. All I asked for you to do is provide something that makes the moon landing being faked be plausible, and you are unable to do so. As usual. I've caught you in your ignorance (please understand that "ignorance" used in this context is not an insult, but a reference to your lack of knowledge), and you refuse to prove your side of the story. I've debunked your side. Now its your turn. You've already lied once, or perhaps just spoken out of ignorance. Please, enlighten me.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat I'm sorry but it looks to me like you're already caught in your ignorance.  When you can get a picture of an amateur astronomer here on Earth with their telescopes showing the footprints there on the moon then you'll have a winning side.  Until then keep emailing the guy who took those pictures, maybe he will help you.  But start to take your own advice here man.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Once again, I've given you some information, not an opinion, and caught you in a lie with the information given, and you refuse to give information to support your side. I've already given you information. You want more from me. I want some from you first. Not an opinion, but factual information. If you can't provide any, as I suspect that you can't, then I am done feeding you, troll. You are the only one caught in ignorance here, as I have already provided proof that you made incorrect statements. You pointed out a mistake that I made, and I corrected it with new information. Now, try to correct your mistake. Good luck.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat Once again you've failed to provide the picture of the footprints on the lunar surface that amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes.  You've given me your speculation, but no pictures.  If it was as easy as you assert to see the footprints on the lunar surface with amateur astronomer telescopes, haven't you questioned why there isn't a single picture of that in 50 years?  It's one thing to assume it can be done, but it's completely another thing to show it, and 50 years of nothing, isn't it easier to assume it's because it can't yet be done?  Close, but no cigar?

Oh and it's not me who is being ignorant, as you were the one who instigated this fall of yours, asking me to explain "the footprints on the lunar surface that amateur astronomers here on Earth can see with their telescopes", which as i stated previously you had no proof of, and you have continued to show you have no proof of, while prattling on about telescopes you think should be able to do it, but yet haven't or can't.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Yes, you are correct, I spoke a bit rashly earlier. No, no footprints. I did provide amateur photos with good enough resolution to show equipment. I'm still waiting for your proofs that the moon landings were faked. Why haven't you produced those yet?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat I didn't say the moon landings were faked, i speculated though "maybe the moon landings were faked?".  Do you have any photos that actually show the equipment from amateur astronomers here on earth?  I doubt there's any pictures of that.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior  "maybe war was revived because they realized they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it?" 
That clearly says that "maybe war was revived", not "maybe the moon landings were faked". Can you even refer to your own comments without lying?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat if that's how you want to interpret it.  There's quite a wealth of information of people saying it was faked, as for me personally i don't know if we went or not.  I've evaluated all information and have to say "i dont know" or "when i step foot on the moon i'll believe it".  But honestly after 50 years, as every year passes towards the 100 year mark, i lean more towards we didn't go.  If 2069 rolls around and i'm still here and we still haven't gone back, or even put a base up there, i'll very likely be thinking it was faked, since a century is too long of a gap for such an achievement to go without a follow up, contradicting the growth pattern of humankind.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior How else would you interpret it? 

As to your next statement, there was also a "wealth of information of people" claiming that the world would end in 2012, due to the Mayan Calendar. I guess we aren't here, discussing this, because the world has already ended. It must be true, because there was a "wealth of information of people" claiming it.

Next, if you aren't sure if we went or not, why do you keep making statements about how it was faked?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat i'm not making any statements it was faked, i speculated it may have been.  Reading comprehension and information gathering doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours, but you do seem big on false equivalencies , which is not very wise if you ask me.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior "they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it". What, exactly, were you trying to say here, then?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat what was meant by "maybe war was revived because they realized they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it?": speculation (hence the maybe).
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior See, thats just it. "Maybe war", not "maybe they faked the moon". Better grammar is in order, perhaps? Or else you need to say what you mean.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat i said what i meant: speculation.  Perhaps it's you who needs to learn to read, or get clarification of what was said before you go into attack mode.  

BTW i'm still waiting for you to provide amateur photos that actually show equipment. Why haven't you produced those yet? Do you have any photos that actually show the equipment from amateur astronomers here on earth?  I doubt there's any pictures of that.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Why the backpedaling? You made a very clear statement, then you claim that its not what you meant. I already admitted that I spoke rashly. You, however, continue to call the sky green, all the while claiming that you said blue.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat you're projecting.  For the 4th and final time it was a speculative question, that in the process of you speaking rashly, you seemed to misunderstand was being asked, or didn't ask enough questions about it.

Are you taking this route because you can't provide amateur photos that actually show equipment, even though you're sure it can be done, despite most people agreeing that no earth ground based telescope exists that can show any equipment on the surface of the Moon? 
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Exactly my point. I ADMITTED that I spoke rashly. You choose to ignore that, and instead keep insisting that I give evidence. You, on the other hand, have stated that a circle has 2.3 flat sides, and refuse to admit to it, instead, claiming that you said 0 flat sides all along. I admitted my mistake. Your turn!
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat I've been quite clear with my statements and gone the distance to help ensure you understand them, even despite your rashness earlier and your ignoring my explanations.  But  when you said " I spoke a bit rashly earlier. No, no footprints. I did provide amateur photos with good enough resolution to show equipment. " you imply that ground based telescopes CAN see equipment.  This is what i'm waiting for you to prove.  Or are you saying that you changed your mind and spoke rashly about that too, and that ground based telescopes CAN'T see any equipment?
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior I'm still waiting for you to explain how, grammatically, your statement means what you claim it does. Ask an English "professional" (like a teacher) to interpret your statement. How much would you like to bet that they will agree with my interpretation? I already admitted my mistake.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat you don't need to be an English professional to see that my first comment (in reply to kal), and 2nd comment (in reply to punk), is speculating a possibility over the fact that we haven't gone back in 50 years.  Expressing things we have done as a human race, and how in regards to space "..something is definitely up with space exploration that smells fishy" (my opinion which has been clarified for you previously).

The problem you seem to have with it stems from your compartmentalizing parts of it, and taking them out of context from the manner they were used.  But i suspect that's just how you chose to roll after you were called out on your own attempt to call me out.

So moving right along, while you admit footprints can't be seen here from earth, are you implying that ground based telescopes CAN see equipment, or conceding that ground based telescopes on earth CAN'T see equipment either?
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior And what about your comment  "maybe war was revived because they realized they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it?" How would that be interpreted? Yes, the rest of your replies are, indeed, speculation. 

"But going to the moon?  "oh, we did that already, no point doing it again"". I agree, completely, that this is speculation. Your reply to Punko is also certainly speculation. That first sentence, however, is a statement, saying that "they couldn't really get to the moon without faking it". How will you spin it now?
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat i'm not spinning anything here man, but it looks like you are trying to.
0
Reply
Male 835
monkwarrior Whatever you choose to think.
0
Reply
Male 1,906
whosaidwhat SO now that's out of the way, while you do admit footprints can't be seen here from earth, were you implying that ground based telescopes CAN see equipment, or conceding that ground based telescopes on earth CAN'T see equipment either? 
0
Reply
Male 2,105
monkwarrior Monkwarrior, International Man of Mystery. ~eyeroll~
0
Reply
Male 1,906
0
Reply
Male 1,011
Evel Knievel wasn't an American superhero. He was a superhero, that was American. Subtle difference....When I was a child growing up in Australia, he was one of my heroes. I remember when I was 5, getting an Evel Knievel stunt bike for christmas...you put the bike on the base unit, wound a crank handle, then pressed a button, and the bike would take off....possibly one of my favourite toys, ever. 
2
Reply