ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: tarkus on October 19, 2015, 12:54:23 AM
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2u8jxip.jpg)
Ships, boats and submarines...
(http://i58.tinypic.com/zxrw9u.jpg)
Airplanes or helicopters ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/rshpn5.jpg)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/303d5l1.png)
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f9nn0l.jpg)
??????????????????????
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
(http://amazingstoriesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Apollo-Reentry_1.jpg)
Yet they spent precious meters and meters of film such scenes:
(http://i.imgur.com/W1zhr.gif)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/15nsoz5.gif)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/30uqwlh.gif)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/307nclx.gif)
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
-
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand it. I can, and I am no scientist. I can also see when someone is just being ignorant on purpose and trying to beard those they know they cannot better.
-
The 'metres and metres of film' you actually posted there are TV broadcast. Google fail. Again.
I guess you haven't even seen the footage shot from inside the CM of re-entry, or the footage from inside the shuttles as they launch.
I did think about posting links, but why should I waste my time putting lipstick on a pig?
Footage from the LM? What's important, seeing what happens on the ground or an astronaut's face?
If you ran the zoo the animals would starve.
-
For fun:
-
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
Where exactly, oh Wise One, would such a film be recorded from?
-
..and, by the way, there are publicly available videos showing reentry. Go look for them.
-
Instead of bringing more arguments, tarkus, why don't you answer questions that have been put to you already, such as how big the Earth will appear to be from 800,000km away? This is a simple question, and your evasion of it is getting silly now. If you cannot answer the question just say so.
-
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
Maybe it's because the (film, not video) cameras were mounted in the windows of the lunar modules, pointed outward?
Maybe it's because the Apollo missions were between 1969 and 1972, well before the GoPro camera?
As for your second claim, seek and ye shall find.
Shuttle:
Those were just the first four I found in a quick Youtube search.
Soyuz:
Again, just the first four.
-
Tarkus, we -do- have 16mm film of the astronauts at the controls of the LM. If you would like a copy it will cost you €300 in transfer and duplication. I will also throw in the TV live recording of the CM cabin during launch of ASTP. For shits and giggles I will also put the Live TV recording of the ASTP CDDT.
Let me know how you want to pay. I thank you in advance for supporting the DSB Space TV Archive.
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
[SNIP]
Ships, boats and submarines...
[SNIP]
Airplanes or helicopters ...
[SNIP]
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f9nn0l.jpg)
??????????????????????
What information would be gained by seeing video of an astronaut flying the LM?
Watching the video of the LM landing gives us useful information about the surface of the Moon.
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
(http://amazingstoriesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Apollo-Reentry_1.jpg)
Do you want video from inside the spacecraft or outside? If inside the spacecraft, what information would be gained by watching three astronauts sitting in their couches? If outside the spacecraft, exactly how do you expect the video to be recorded?
Yet they spent precious meters and meters of film such scenes:
[SNIP]
And they also spent many more "metres" (actually, try bandwidth) filming this:
That is, recording geological information about the Moon. This is why the astronauts went to the Moon: to study the Moon.
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
As others have shown, you need to look to find information.
-
As others have shown, you need to look to find information.
One of Tarkus' many failings is that he appears either incapable of or unwilling to look outside of all the common hoax websites for his information (remarkably similar to Tindahwatshisface's approach). It's a common approach of the hoaxie's mindset and it means that it limits them to operating within an "echo-chamber". Of course, if they had any interest in learning, then an afternoon on Wikipedia or the NASA Technical Reports Server would show them just how ridiculous their claims are.
-
I thought we had reached some sort of limit for The Stupid, but I have learned from reading the rantings and ravings of this thread's OP, is that The Stupid knows no bounds. Like the Universe, it is unlimited in its extent.
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f9nn0l.jpg)
??????????????????????
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
Yet they spent precious meters and meters of film such scenes:
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
Why do you start a new thread when you haven't a clue to answer your questions in two other threads? Now for filming to occur, there need to be a camera pointed at the pilots/copilots. running probably on automatic, since they are rather busy flying the craft and or calling out speed and fuel data. which do you think is more appropriate film or actually landing 240 miles from home and no second chance to return home if they crash?
-
Why do you start a new thread when you haven't a clue to answer your questions in two other threads?
His tactic is the haoxie's old favourite, the gish-gallop.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish+Gallop
Don't click on the link unless you can handle a bit of "fruity" language. ;D
-
Why do you start a new thread when you haven't a clue to answer your questions in two other threads?
His tactic is the haoxie's old favourite, the gish-gallop.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gish+Gallop
Don't click on the link unless you can handle a bit of "fruity" language. ;D
I doubt he will get it.
-
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat...
1. We can. You just haven't looked at much of the Apollo record.
2. Why is it a shame?
We just have a dubious story...
Uh, it's not the least dubious. The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.
So to prolong your trollish Gish gallop you invent yet another thing that you, in your infinite wisdom, say should have been photographed, and in a certain way. And the simple answer for all of that is no -- you don't get to decide for someone else what's important and interesting for them. When you have your own space program, you can direct your astronauts to photograph what you want to see. In the meantime you don't make that decision for anyone else, and especially not for NASA.
-
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat...
1. We can. You just haven't looked at much of the Apollo record.
2. Why is it a shame?
We just have a dubious story...
Uh, it's not the least dubious. The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.
So to prolong your trollish Gish gallop you invent yet another thing that you, in your infinite wisdom, say should have been photographed, and in a certain way. And the simple answer for all of that is no -- you don't get to decide for someone else what's important and interesting for them. When you have your own space program, you can direct your astronauts to photograph what you want to see. In the meantime you don't make that decision for anyone else, and especially not for NASA.
Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.
-
And... where is Tarkus?
-
And... where is Tarkus?
He's probably resting. Repeated goalpost moving can be quite tiring.
-
Especially when there's no-one to help.
-
Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.
I doubt he'll acknowledge how flagrantly he's begging the question. Tarkus is using a rhetorical strategy so common we've given it a name -- the "If I Ran the Zoo" argument. The reference is to the title of a Dr. Seuss book in which the young protagonist daydreams about what sorts of exotic (and completely made-up) animals he would keep if he ran the local zoo. Consequently the argument takes the form of a proclamation (often in just the form of a bare assertion) that a certain thing should be evident and forthcoming from a real space program, and that its absence from Apollo signals suspicion. It is the justification of that expectation that embodies the begged question. It is difficult to argue against a proposition that it would have been useful or entertaining to conduct a space mission according to the proposal. But no matter how appealing the expectation, it still consists of substituting the proponent's desires and goals for someone else's. Appeal is thus irrelevant. If a person or organization conducts itself according to well-stated goals and well-documented limitations, then attacking the justification of the goals has no effect on the propriety of the actions that would still logically follow from them.
-
Excellent observation, but I doubt he will get it.
I doubt he'll acknowledge how flagrantly he's begging the question. Tarkus is using a rhetorical strategy so common we've given it a name -- the "If I Ran the Zoo" argument. The reference is to the title of a Dr. Seuss book in which the young protagonist daydreams about what sorts of exotic (and completely made-up) animals he would keep if he ran the local zoo. Consequently the argument takes the form of a proclamation (often in just the form of a bare assertion) that a certain thing should be evident and forthcoming from a real space program, and that its absence from Apollo signals suspicion. It is the justification of that expectation that embodies the begged question. It is difficult to argue against a proposition that it would have been useful or entertaining to conduct a space mission according to the proposal. But no matter how appealing the expectation, it still consists of substituting the proponent's desires and goals for someone else's. Appeal is thus irrelevant. If a person or organization conducts itself according to well-stated goals and well-documented limitations, then attacking the justification of the goals has no effect on the propriety of the actions that would still logically follow from them.
Yeah, right.
Here is the thing that annoys me about that. If I, or you, or anyone were landing the first men on the moon, or the second, third, fourth etc, the last thing on my mind would be glad handing and taking selfies and patting one another on the back.
All of my attention would be on putting the ship on the ground and to hell with the cameras.
This does not require science or engineering or anything much beyond simple self preservation. But according to Tarkus, Neil and Buzz should have been high fiving and taking selfies. This is at least one of the few circumstances where common sense is actually right. One would have to be barking mad to take pics while landing an actual spacecraft on the actual moon.
-
Here is the thing that annoys me about that. If I, or you, or anyone were landing the first men on the moon, or the second, third, fourth etc, the last thing on my mind would be glad handing and taking selfies and patting one another on the back.
But even that doesn't matter. What you or I would do, versus what Tarkus would do, or what some random joe would do, is simply irrelevant. There was a definite photography plan for each of the missions, according to rationales determined by mission planners and scientists. And yes, contrary to what Tarkus might think, photographing the astronauts working and moving on the lunar surface was considered important information compared to photos of Earth that would simply not be as good as pictures of Earth obtained by other means.
All of my attention would be on putting the ship on the ground and to hell with the cameras.
Which was a legitimate concern for Apollo 11. Mission planners wanted to delete television from that mission altogether, explaining that Apollo 8 had provided suitable TV coverage for publicity purposes and arguing that Apollo 11 was already a dangerous and iffy enough mission without adding publicity elements.
-
Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread. Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.
First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film"). Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.
Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work. This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done". Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith. That's arrant nonsense.
Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions. That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that. You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject. Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.
Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.
-
Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.
-
Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.
I could postulate worse. Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM ::)
-
I could postulate worse. Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM ::)
You laugh, but this happens. People ask who filmed Armstrong's first step off the ladder, etc. And when they find out it was by means of an automatic camera deployed upon egress, they want to know why that same camera can't have filmed the landing.
-
I could postulate worse. Why didn't NASA have a camera on the lunar location to view the landing from outside the LM ::)
You laugh, but this happens. People ask who filmed Armstrong's first step off the ladder, etc. And when they find out it was by means of an automatic camera deployed upon egress, they want to know why that same camera can't have filmed the landing.
I have seen questions regarding who filmed Neil on the ladder but not why the camera couldn't have filmed the landing.
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
Sigh, this isn't really worth entertaining is it? Tarkus, your arguments really are flimsy. There isn't a picture of me anywhere that shows me at the wheel of my car, but there is plenty of evidence proving that I have driven my car.
-
One of the cool things about having an exploration "infrastructure" (in the sense of observational assets orbiting a celestial body) is being able to capture glimpses of EDL, e.g., Shuttle reentries seen from ISS, or MRO capturing Phoenix and Curiosity descending. Amazing images.
-
One of the photos in my office is of a launch as seen from space.
-
One of the photos in my office is of a launch as seen from space.
Yes, I've seen one from the ISS on Discovery launch. cool stuff
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
I'd say 12 & 14 at around 180 km :)
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
I imagine obm, could help there, I don't have anything installed to either measure or calculate the distances between 15 16 and/or 17
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
You best me to it, but it should be 15,16 or 17 with the rovers
I'd say 12 & 14 at around 180 km :)
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
You best me to it, but it should be 15,16 or 17 with the rovers
I'd say 12 & 14 at around 180 km :)
Don't move the goalposts :D
I suppose also that it was a plan for one of the cancelled missions? It's not something I've come across before, but what a cool idea!
Google Moon (ie Google Earth and switch to the moon view) is all you need :)
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
You best me to it, but it should be 15,16 or 17 with the rovers
I'd say 12 & 14 at around 180 km :)
Don't move the goalposts :D
I suppose also that it was a plan for one of the cancelled missions? It's not something I've come across before, but what a cool idea!
Google Moon (ie Google Earth and switch to the moon view) is all you need :)
Just the correct ones. I don't have it installed, lap is out of memory with all I have running. :o
-
There was a proposal to remote drive the lrv to the next planned landing zone and televise the next j landing: as put forth by Dr Farooq el Baz.
Which has me wondering what the shortest distance is between two actual landing sites.
You best me to it, but it should be 15,16 or 17 with the rovers
I'd say 12 & 14 at around 180 km :)
Don't move the goalposts :D
I suppose also that it was a plan for one of the cancelled missions? It's not something I've come across before, but what a cool idea!
Google Moon (ie Google Earth and switch to the moon view) is all you need :)
If you estimate 180 km 12/14 I would estimate 700 km 14/16 WSW maybe a bit more.
Edit direction
-
Found this web page, I can't independently verify the distances
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001441.html
A11 to A12 - 1426 km
A11 to A14 - 1248 km
A11 to A15 - 965 km
A11 to A16 - 379 km
A11 to A17 - 630 km
A12 to A14 - 181 km
A12 to A15 - 1188 km
A12 to A16 - 1187 km
A12 to A17 - 1758 km
A14 to A15 - 1095 km
A14 to A16 - 1007 km
A14 to A17 - 1607 km
A15 to A16 - 1119 km
A15 to A17 - 776 km
A16 to A17 - 995 km
-
Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.
"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
--Roger Ebert
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
Sigh, this isn't really worth entertaining is it? Tarkus, your arguments really are flimsy. There isn't a picture of me anywhere that shows me at the wheel of my car, but there is plenty of evidence proving that I have driven my car.
Come to think of it, there a vanishingly few pictures of me teaching student pilots to fly. Does that mean the FAA has to revoke their certificates because there's no evidence?
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
Sigh, this isn't really worth entertaining is it? Tarkus, your arguments really are flimsy. There isn't a picture of me anywhere that shows me at the wheel of my car, but there is plenty of evidence proving that I have driven my car.
Come to think of it, there a vanishingly few pictures of me teaching student pilots to fly. Does that mean the FAA has to revoke their certificates because there's no evidence?
Oh god, it's solipsism all they way down, I knew it. Or did I?
-
Good grief, this is desperate stuff. Tarkus has gone through the bottom of the barrel with this one.
"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
--Roger Ebert
Ha! ;D No doubt, however, our 'friend' tarkus will barrel into some new claim. It's not like he's stopped before!
I was going to write a rebuttal when this topic showed up, but I was too exhausted by his antics to give a flying fudge.
-
Here is the thing that annoys me about that. If I, or you, or anyone were landing the first men on the moon, or the second, third, fourth etc, the last thing on my mind would be glad handing and taking selfies and patting one another on the back.
Yet they sometimes did take pictures of each other while in the LM on the moon, usually after a final EVA when all the important work was done and they had some film to spare:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5528.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-37-5531.jpg
and
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17evm20517-23.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20530.jpg
-
I like the one of Cernan, looks like s coal miner off shift.
-
I like the one of Cernan, looks like s coal miner off shift.
Don't give the hoaxers any ideas.
-
I like the one of Cernan, looks like s coal miner off shift.
Don't give the hoaxers any ideas.
As if they need any help. Most all the stupid ideas have already been taken and debunked, .
-
For fun:
lol knew this photo but this proves anything? What I see here is a man in a mock spaceship and illuminated with black background, nothing more.
I was talking about something else ...
-
..and, by the way, there are publicly available videos showing reentry. Go look for them.
That does not answer the question.
-
Instead of bringing more arguments, tarkus, why don't you answer questions that have been put to you already, such as how big the Earth will appear to be from 800,000km away? This is a simple question, and your evasion of it is getting silly now. If you cannot answer the question just say so.
Deflects the subject, I already answered that in astronomy can not do the trick of larger planets in the background while the size of the one in the foreground, you refuse remains to accept it is more due to their own foolishness than any other cause.
-
..and, by the way, there are publicly available videos showing reentry. Go look for them.
That does not answer the question.
Actually, it does. In case you have forgotten, this was the question:
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why?
-
For fun:
lol knew this photo but this proves anything? What I see here is a man in a mock spaceship and illuminated with black background, nothing more.
I was talking about something else ...
I don't care :)
It's a photo of human being at the controls of a lunar module, one of a series of photos that start with a very distant LM against the moon. A sequence that was also captured on 16mm footage.
Do try keeping your goalposts in the same place for a few minutes.
-
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
Maybe it's because the (film, not video) cameras were mounted in the windows of the lunar modules, pointed outward?
Maybe it's because the Apollo missions were between 1969 and 1972, well before the GoPro camera?
As for your second claim, seek and ye shall find.
Shuttle:
Those were just the first four I found in a quick Youtube search.
Soyuz:
Again, just the first four.
I saw the first two videos of the Shuttle and the first of the Russians ... but I see only confined in any one compartment men talking or taking notes, I do not see any astronaut at the controls of a spaceship, something as seen in the Ship Photos my first post.
Nothing about reentry? only stories of dubious authenticity?
-
I saw the first two videos of the Shuttle and the first of the Russians ... but I see only confined in any one compartment men talking or taking notes, I do not see any astronaut at the controls of a spaceship, something as seen in the Ship Photos my first post.
How dare the real world for not fitting into your child-like preconceptions. Perhaps this is what you were expecting?
(http://flashgordon.ws/images/fg103.jpg)
Nothing about reentry? only stories of dubious authenticity?
Again, go and look for them.
By the way...you have questions to answer:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg34623#msg34623
-
something as seen in the Ship Photos my first post.
In a way, it's actually quite sad to see a grown man displaying such unbelievable ignorance of how things work. And even sadder to see such a refusal to make any attempt to learn.
Tarkus, do you really believe that boosters are "flown" into orbit like a car is driven? Really?
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
[SNIP]
Ships, boats and submarines...
[SNIP]
Airplanes or helicopters ...
[SNIP]
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f9nn0l.jpg)
??????????????????????
What information would be gained by seeing video of an astronaut flying the LM?
Watching the video of the LM landing gives us useful information about the surface of the Moon.
It would be useful to determine if they really went to the moon or simulated, since there is little convincing evidence that module flew anywhere, engines that do not show fire or make noise inside the LM was pressurized, therefore if air why not hear the engine, never?
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
(http://amazingstoriesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Apollo-Reentry_1.jpg)
Do you want video from inside the spacecraft or outside? If inside the spacecraft, what information would be gained by watching three astronauts sitting in their couches? If outside the spacecraft, exactly how do you expect the video to be recorded?
We have seen how the rocket Apollo separate phases in orbit, I see no reason not to do the same when re-entering the atmosphere or when you perform the landing, had become more credible such a strange scene with engines that do not make noise or expelled flar.
As others have shown, you need to look to find information.
Another one that repeats the same music ... "go get" it is NOT an answer but a confession that there is nothing to show.
-
I thought we had reached some sort of limit for The Stupid, but I have learned from reading the rantings and ravings of this thread's OP, is that The Stupid knows no bounds. Like the Universe, it is unlimited in its extent.
YOU ARE ONLY YOU INSULTS, BETTER LEAVE AT LEAST TRY OTHER MORE EDUCATION, CLOWN.
-
It would be useful to determine if they really went to the moon or simulated, since there is little convincing evidence that module flew anywhere, engines that do not show fire or make noise inside the LM was pressurized, therefore if air why not hear the engine, never?
And yet the 16mm footage that does exist shows, in every landing, small rocks and craters visible in images from modern probes but not known about before the mission.
Another one that repeats the same music ... "go get" it is NOT an answer but a confession that there is nothing to show.
Nope, it's just that people aren't prepared to do things you're too lazy or incompetent to do yourself.
The footage you demanded exists, go find it.
-
I thought we had reached some sort of limit for The Stupid, but I have learned from reading the rantings and ravings of this thread's OP, is that The Stupid knows no bounds. Like the Universe, it is unlimited in its extent.
YOU ARE ONLY YOU INSULTS, BETTER LEAVE AT LEAST TRY OTHER MORE EDUCATION, CLOWN.
Then stop posting stupid badly researched comments, and answer questions put to you. If you refuse to answer questions while demanding answers yourself it just makes you look like an ill-educated trolling moron.
-
We are all familiar with what it means to drive a car, truck and all kinds of carriages ...
A real shame that we could not see our intrepid space heroes performing this feat ... just trash film projected behind the triangular window:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/f9nn0l.jpg)
??????????????????????
We just have a dubious story about the greatest feat in the history of mankind, was to not spend movie?
Nor have no film records for maneuvering reentry, why? only are drawings or artistic interpretations.
Yet they spent precious meters and meters of film such scenes:
Why do astronauts have avoided driving show their spaceships? I do not remember seeing them at the controls of the shuttle ... and now that I think the Russians have also been reluctant to show how a spaceship driving.
Why do you start a new thread when you haven't a clue to answer your questions in two other threads? Now for filming to occur, there need to be a camera pointed at the pilots/copilots. running probably on automatic, since they are rather busy flying the craft and or calling out speed and fuel data. which do you think is more appropriate film or actually landing 240 miles from home and no second chance to return home if they crash?
On the other threads need time to reply to all, I'm only against a dozen like you. If you think my delay in responding I have no answers, you're wrong, wrong.
With a fixed camera placed inside the car enough, in fact there have been scenes like that, but no filming the show leading the LM or CM. What Armstrong is just a story, there is no evidence that the spatial shanty engines have never worked in space, visually or acoustics.
-
Tarkus,
You are just embarrassing yourself at this stage. If you have a shred of self-respect left then you should stop now.
-
Uh, it's not the least dubious. The only people who pretend to doubt it are the very lunatic fringe, and for reasons entirely traceable to their own ignorance and laziness.
No, people who doubt expressed those doubts, those who believe (like you) or lie on salary, are those who must clear those doubts with respect and without calling ignorant to the other, because until now all I have is you and your friends say "go get" or "that's not important," really does not make much sense to belong to a forum that produces such fury answer simple questions.
And as you treat me crazy or ignorant, whoever reads this discussion could actually assume that you are an immature believer who refuses to accept that Santa Claus does not exist ... and the discussion would end in insults, is that what you propose?
-
those who believe (like you) or lie on salary, are those who must clear those doubts...
I would have a responsibility to address rational doubts. Yours are irrational, for the reasons I and others have belabored. Your "doubt" arises on the one hand from your willful ignorance and on the other hand from your stubborn denial. These are not positions that obligate others to play your game.
And as you treat me crazy or ignorant, whoever reads this discussion could actually assume that you are an immature believer who refuses to accept that Santa Claus does not exist ... and the discussion would end in insults, is that what you propose?
You are ignorant. At this point that's simply a statement of fact, not an insult. I and many others have made several attempts to educate you, but you are simply not interested. Your ongoing ignorance -- whether real or feigned -- is the root cause of your doubts. You have been directed to evidence that contradicts your statements and beliefs. You have been shown demonstrations that contradict how you say you expect the natural world to behave. You assiduously ignore all of that, and as such must be deemed impervious to facts and reason.
-
By the way...you have questions to answer:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg34623#msg34623
-
Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread. Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.
First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film"). Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.
Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work. This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done". Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith. That's arrant nonsense.
Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions. That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that. You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject. Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.
Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.
You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?) and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
-
What Armstrong is just a story, there is no evidence that the spatial shanty engines have never worked in space, visually or acoustics.
Nonsense. You identify one of literally infinite ways to document something and claim that because this one thing wasn't done in this case, there's "no evidence." Despite what you may believe, there is copious evidence that the Apollo spacecraft worked as advertised. And this evidence is accepted as genuine by the unanimous consensus of the relevant professions over a period of decades, including America's erstwhile enemies. Your personal denial and disbelief is simply irrelevant.
-
...secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven[.]
The documents are the proof.
...you will read that data with reverecia produced in his mind the authority that has been written...
No, your critics are not simply engaging in hero worship. Some of us are professionally qualified in these sciences.
...but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
If you believe Apollo is a lie, it is your burden to prove it. Simply saying it could be is not sufficient. Simply failing to make an effort to study it is not sufficient. Simply condemning all scientists is not sufficient. Ignorance is not a position from which you can argue that someone else is lying. None of that pseudo-political handwaving matters. If someone has lied, then his statements can be shown in contradiction of fact. Casting aspersions on his character does not prove he is lying.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is.
You don't understand that evidence. Your inability to interpret it has been made very apparent.
And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
No, it's just a red herring, the latest in your laughable efforts to trump up any complaint against Apollo, no matter how arrogant or ridiculous.
-
I take it Tarkus, you will want a dvd of the footage you say doesnt exist. Do you have a paypal account to send me the agreed 300 euro duplication cost.
-
I take it Tarkus, you will want a dvd of the footage you say doesnt exist. Do you have a paypal account to send me the agreed 300 euro duplication cost.
Too cheap IMO.
-
Thought all you heard in space was The Blue Danube.
-
Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread. Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.
First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film"). Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.
Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work. This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done". Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith. That's arrant nonsense.
Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions. That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that. You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject. Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.
Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.
You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?) and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
blah blah blah...where are the answers to the questions that have been put to you? Where are the acknowledgements of your abysmal failure to carry out even basic searches for source material?
There is no evidence supporting your case, none. Absence of evidence is all you have provided, together with absence of understanding and absence of research.
There is verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship, you just refuse to accept it. That's your problem - not absence of evidence, just a refusal to accept anything that proves you wrong, which happens every time you make a spurious claim on this forum.
-
You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?)
When there was good line of sight for the antennas the voice were pretty clear. sometimes MCC over road the conversations but that was delay. The voices don't seem metallic or nasal to me.
and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said
there is not proven, you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written,
Data is recorded not thought up by someone.but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
please provide evidence of lies or complicity or lying, not just your imaginationAnd of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
You believe you are critical, I believe you are ignorant of the facts presented by others and refuse to accept those documented by others
-
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is. And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
There's no verifiable 'evidence' that they actually used the space toilet during the trip either. Do you take that as 'evidence' that the toilet facilities didn't exist? Does this prove anything? No.
There's no verifiable'evidence' of the readings on the Command Module panel showing the state of the oxygen supplies, the fuel. Does this prove anything? No, they just didn't photograph or film it because they had better things to do.
-
...I do not see any astronaut at the controls of a spaceship...
Then you are, quite frankly, willfully blind. Those videos show exactly what you asked for, astronauts (and cosmonauts) at the controls of their "spaceships". What more do you want?
"Spaceships" are not race cars, Navy ships or helicopters, so why would you expect them to be controlled in exactly the same ways?
They are more closely related to fixed-wing aircraft, though still not identical, and in fact you'll see air crews doing very similar things. For much of a flight, the cockpit crew of a modern airliner will not have their hands on what you think are "the controls" either. You'll see them talking on the radio or to each other, punching numbers into keypads, reading displays, reviewing flight plans and checklists, and the like.
Computers now do the routine flying of both airliners and manned spacecraft. The pilots take over mainly when close eye/hand coordination is required, e.g., the landing of the shuttle or an airliner, though even many airliners can now automatically perform routine take-offs and landings. At other times the crew is there to make sure everything is configured and working correctly, and to take over if something goes wrong.
Space flight isn't phony just because it doesn't meet your naive, uninformed expectations.
-
Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread. Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.
First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film"). Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.
Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work. This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done". Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith. That's arrant nonsense.
Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions. That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that. You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject. Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.
Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.
You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?)
Oh, dear. You didn't answer my question.
You claimed that there was no imagery of crews "driving" their spaceships. Multiple examples were promptly shown to you, which made me ask you if you ever reconsider your position, given the many errors you make concerning Apollo.
Instead of answering my question, you simply repeated your second error, the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy, but added an irrelevant complaint about sound quality. This is another variant - we'll call it the "if I engineered the zoo" fallacy. The problem is, you simply don't know anything about spaceflight in general, nor about spacecraft communications in particular. You're just waving your hands that things should be a certain way, but you have no basis for it other than your demonstrably ignorant opinion.
and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven,
Handwaving. You can't simply deny what's in the documentation and expect anyone to take you seriously. Not only do you clearly not understand what's in the documentation, you aren't even aware of the existence of the vast majority of it.
you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
Appealing to general conspiracism won't save you. Nor will attempting to frame those who disagree with you as gullible believers uncritically accepting what they are told by NASA. The regulars here are the ones finding and reporting the evidence, and pulling it apart and analyzing it and correcting each other. You, on the other hand, Google up images and factoids from random sources, but are unable to construct a coherent, let alone factual, narrative with them.
And, by the way, I've worked with people who made Mercury and Gemini and Apollo happen. I'm talking about hard-nosed engineers who would hand you your head if you played fast and loose with the facts. I'm not in their league, but I can, and try to, apply that same kind of mindset in my job. And yes, space flight is my business; I don't have to just believe or disbelieve.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is.
I have seen no evidence of critical analysis from committed Apollo hoax believers. Critical analysis requires being able to admit error. Neither you nor any of the conspiracists you crib from demonstrate the ability or willingness to do so.
And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
No, it's risible. You said there was no evidence. You were provided with evidence. Now, you're half-denying it exists, and half-handwaving that it's somehow wrong or untrustworthy, but once again, you have nothing but your own ignorant opinion to back it up.
I'm not insulting you by calling you ignorant about space flight in general and Apollo in particular. We're all ignorant about something. But you refuse to amend, or even acknowledge, your ignorance. So, I return to the questions asked above:
Given your numerous errors, why do you never reconsider your position?
And why, given your unwillingness and/or inability to correct or even acknowledge your mistakes, should anybody keep trying to educate you?
I'm not saying this to insult you. I'm simply trying to get you to think about what you're doing, rather than just keep digging in.
-
When there was good line of sight for the antennas the voice were pretty clear. sometimes MCC over road the conversations but that was delay. The voices don't seem metallic or nasal to me.
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
please provide evidence of lies or complicity or lying, not just your imagination
Bazant's paper published just two days after 9/11, while all the steel was sent to melt scrap ... the academic community of engineers and architects who work defending this garbage has no traces of moral stature.
You believe you are critical, I believe you are ignorant of the facts presented by others and refuse to accept those documented by others
We think differently to you is more important to film the astronauts playing golf driving their spaceships, for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
-
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
You whine too much. Yes, to some people all the astronauts sound the same. Just like to some others, all baseball players sound the same. And to yet others, all NPR correspondents sound the same. Yet to the people immersed in the information from those various fields, there is a distinct difference. I know what Neil Armstrong sounds like. If you don't, it literally is your problem. And you need to stop whining about people pointing out your obvious and glaring deficiency. Your particular combination of ignorance and arrogance is not the status quo.
... the academic community of engineers and architects who work defending this garbage has no traces of moral stature.
Again, calling all legitimate practitioners of a field liars and scoundrels is not a convincing argument.
...for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
And if your ill-informed opinion mattered, this would mean something.
-
We think differently to you is more important to film the astronauts playing golf driving their spaceships, for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
There's much more to the Apollo record than a recording of that golf shot. Much more.
-
We think differently to you is more important to film the astronauts playing golf driving their spaceships, for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
I think. You don't.
I am prepared to sit through hours of lunar surface footage, look at what is there, analyse it, discuss it and think about it..
You have read somewhere that someone played golf and think that a) this is the same as 18 holes with a full set of clubs and b) this is the only thing people who defend Apollo are interested in.
Wrong on all counts.
-
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
Actually they don't. Perhaps a hearing test along with a sight test is called for? ::)
-
Deflects the subject
No, it is delving into the details of the subject. How big will any object appear to be if you move twice as far away from it?
I already answered that in astronomy can not do the trick of larger planets in the background while the size of the one in the foreground,
You did not answer the question I put to you, you made a sweeping (and false) statement. What is it about astronomy that makes it impossible for a planet to appear larger than its moon even when the moon is in front of the planet? Do Jupiter's moons block the view of Jupiter? If not, why should Earth's moon block the view of Earth?
you refuse remains to accept it is more due to their own foolishness than any other cause.
I refuse to accept it because i know mathematically and with my own eyes that your statement is false. Your inability to prove your statement instead of just repeating it is the issue here.
So, if Earth appears 2 degrees wide from 400,000 km, how large will it appear from 800,000 km, or how much smaller will it look if you double the distance of observer? You already made a statement about the size of the Earth that used numerical values, so why can't you follow through the argument with more numerical values and proofs?
-
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
As this seems to be a problem that only occurs for you, hearing problems on your side would seem the most likely explanation.
Just to test a personal hypothesis could you tell me the capital of France?
-
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
I guess you are. With just a little practice I can easily distinguish the three astronauts in any Apollo mission.
The Apollo voice communication system is not much different from that still used in aviation. Fidelity is not as important as intelligibility, so voice is bandwidth-limited to eliminate high and low frequencies and compressed and clipped to make it sound loud in the presence of background noise.
-
driving their spaceships
Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?
Let me tell you how I think it was done:
At liftoff, the astronauts were tied down tight, waiting for the automated countdown to start the show. They had a few switches to press, measurements to read back, but basically, the computers did the work. There was no hand steering during liftoff. Once in orbit, they looked at the computer, determined if the numbers were correct. Then they waited for the right moment, and the computer started the engine, accelerating the spacecraft towards the moon. After the engine had done it's job, it was discarded. Just before that, there wass HANDFLYING of the spacecraft. The CMP moved the spacecraft forward in relation to the booster. Then he turned it around and moved back towards the booster until he docked with the LM. So we have perhaps an hour of intense, mission critical activity where the astronauts are busy with very tight maneuvering - who should film it? Why should they film it? What would a film show, other than the astronauts sitting in their couches, occasionally flipping switches, and one moving a hand controller very carefully. Not much to see, is there?
Along the way, the astronauts looked at the computer now and then, and determineed if the numbers are correct. If not, they sat down in their couches, and then the computer pointed the spacecraft in the desired direction, and started the engine for a few seconds. There was no hand-flying here. Then they were at the moon. They were passing behind the moon, and they needed to brake the spacecraft so they could get info orbit. The computer pointed the spacecraft - and started the engine for a predetermined time. NO handflying here. Then they were in orbit.
After transferring two astronauts to the LM, the LM and CSM separated. HANDFLYING the LM, they positioned themselves so the CSM pilot could inspect the LM, giving it the goahead for a landing. Then they started the computer, and it flied the spacecraft until it was close to the ground. Just before touchdown, the commander assumed manual control, and HANDFLIED the LM to a safe landing. At most, a minute or two of handflying, where he was intensely concentrated, and his LMP had his nose in the instruments ensuring the commander had all the information he needed to ensure a safe landing. Who should film it? What would it show?
Now on the moon, they have to get back up to lunar orbit. They stood at their posts, held in place by restraints, and the computer flew the ascent stage all the way to orbit. The computer flew the craft all the way up to the rendezvous. Then the commander assumed control, and handflew the LM to a docking with the CSM. After transfer back to the CSM, the LM was discarded, and the computer pointed the CSM in the correct direction and fired the engine to get them started on the return. Along the way, the computer corrected the trajectory now and then - but the handflying was over. All the rest was done by computer. And inertia. And gravity.
So on an Apollo mission, the handflying was only done when there was exact maneuvering involved close to another body. Most of the time, they were just moving like a bullet fired from a gun - no propulsion, no steering - and no handflying necessary. They could move around in the CM, sleep, eat, take pictures - basically do a lot of things not relating to steering the spacecraft. What you fail to understand is perhaps that space is EMPTY. There is no need to sit and look out for trees and pedestrians like in a car - or signals like in a train. Or bad weather like in an aircraft. There is nothing there - nothing visible anyway. If there was something dangerous they would need to avoid, it would move so fast, they could not see it before they were dead.
Why would they film the "driving" of the spacecraft? Would it not be more appropriate to DO THE MISSION instead of faffing about with a camera, when it wasn't needed?
-
All astronauts sound exactly the same, impossible to distinguish the voice of Armstrong of Lowell or Cernan, but now say that I am deaf ... as usual.
So? This proves nothing, other than to tell us something about you. I know people who can't tell an Alto from a Tenor saxophone. So what?
Bazant's paper published just two days after 9/11, while all the steel was sent to melt scrap ... the academic community of engineers and architects who work defending this garbage has no traces of moral stature.
Nothing to do with Apollo at all.
We think differently to you is more important to film the astronauts playing golf driving their spaceships, for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
One astronaut hit one golf ball with one implement converted to act as a golf club. This lasted no more than a couple of minutes. It didn't dominate the missions, it wasn't the focus of any of the missions, it was merely an amusing diversion.
The astronauts took cassette players along for some background music along the way. Are you going to assert that they were on vacation, and not working, because of this?
-
So? This proves nothing, other than to tell us something about you. I know people who can't tell an Alto from a Tenor saxophone. So what?
Nothing to do with Apollo at all.
We think differently to you is more important to film the astronauts playing golf driving their spaceships, for me it's the opposite, we can not agree to this.
One astronaut hit one golf ball with one implement converted to act as a golf club. This lasted no more than a couple of minutes. It didn't dominate the missions, it wasn't the focus of any of the missions, it was merely an amusing diversion.
The astronauts took cassette players along for some background music along the way. Are you going to assert that they were on vacation, and not working, because of this?
They were men, who like to joke cut up just like a lot of adults. NASA didn't turn a deaf ear to allow personal requests.
EDIT: Spelling
-
Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?
I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this
(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)
-
Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?
I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this
(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)
GoPro wasn't in existence in the 60's-70's
-
What information would be gained by seeing video of an astronaut flying the LM?
Watching the video of the LM landing gives us useful information about the surface of the Moon.
It would be useful to determine if they really went to the moon or simulated, since there is little convincing evidence that module flew anywhere, engines that do not show fire or make noise inside the LM was pressurized, therefore if air why not hear the engine, never?
Please make up your mind what the problem is.
First you want video of the astronauts flying the LM. Now you're complaining about the lack of flame and noise.
Right, here goes...
How does video of the astronauts flying the LM prove they landed on the Moon? If there was such video it wouldn't show a view out the window, so you would complain that video you had just asked for doesn't show the LM landing on the Moon.
There is plenty of evidence that astronauts walked on the Moon, such as the video and photographic record of the astronauts on the Moon, and the rocks they brought back. They had to get there somehow, and the LM is a suitable means of getting to and from the Moon. There is video of the LM in flight, both from inside and outside the LM. Put that all together and that is enough for most people. If it doesn't suit you, that is unfortunate but it does not mean the evidence we have is not good enough.
Lack of engine flame? The LM Ascent Engine used the same propellants as the Titan II missile. You can verify that. Photos of Titan II missile launches show the exhaust flame was nearly invisible. You can verify that too. The image quality of the lunar rover TV camera was much lower than cameras used to take photos of Titan II launches. You can verify that.
It is therefore not surprising that the TV pictures of the LMs lifting off from the Moon do not show an exhaust flame.
Lack of engine noise? The only means of transmitting sounds from the LM to Mission Control was by means of the astronauts' microphones. The microphones were highly directional and located close to the astronauts' mouths. You can verify that. The reason for this was that it was important for Mission Control to hear the astronauts' voices only, and not be distracted by other sounds.
It is therefore not surprising that the astronauts' microphones did not pick up the sound of the LM Ascent Engine: the microphones were specifically designed to pick up the sounds of the astronauts' voices to the exclusion of other sounds.
Do you want video from inside the spacecraft or outside? If inside the spacecraft, what information would be gained by watching three astronauts sitting in their couches? If outside the spacecraft, exactly how do you expect the video to be recorded?
We have seen how the rocket Apollo separate phases in orbit, I see no reason not to do the same when re-entering the atmosphere or when you perform the landing, had become more credible such a strange scene with engines that do not make noise or expelled flar.
I do not understand what you are saying. What were you expecting to see? Video of the Command Module from somewhere outside the spacecraft? Or video of the crew inside the spacecraft?
Launches were filmed only by cameras on the ground at the launch site. Re-entry occurred over the Pacific Ocean. Where was NASA supposed to place cameras to record re-entry?
Or perhaps you could watch this video: a little after 17:30 you get an image of the re-entering spacecraft. Are you happy now?
As others have shown, you need to look to find information.
Another one that repeats the same music ... "go get" it is NOT an answer but a confession that there is nothing to show.
Are you willing to withdraw that claim now that I've shown you evidence that you are wrong?
-
The night reentries are spectacular, Apollo or Shuttle.
-
Agreed. I've watched Shuttles leave a plasma trail from Houston. (And was at the SLF for the first night landing at KSC.)
Ascents are also cool. I've watched a number of Shuttle liftoffs from KSC and the Cape, but have also watched Shuttles on high-inclination night launches from Virginia and Maryland. It's fun to watch a fat yellow spark zipping up along the East Coast.)
-
So we have perhaps an hour of intense, mission critical activity where the astronauts are busy with very tight maneuvering - who should film it? Why should they film it? What would a film show, other than the astronauts sitting in their couches, occasionally flipping switches, and one moving a hand controller very carefully. Not much to see, is there?
Yet they did film and photograph it, though the images are of the LM sitting on top of the S-IVB as the CSM approached it. Because that's the interesting part.
Photos of the interior would simply show the CMP in the left seat with his right hand on the attitude joystick and his left hand on the translation controller, looking out the window through his COAS device. Would look just like training photos on the ground except for the stuff floating in weightlessness, moving around a little as he maneuvered the spacecraft.
There are plenty of photos, film and video of the three astronauts floating inside the command module during more relaxed times as they flew between the earth and moon. They're shown eating (and sometimes playing with their food), reading, conducting experiments, looking out the windows, waving at the camera, or sleeping. The video segments are long enough to prove the weightlessness isn't being done in an airplane; they're really in space.
But our friend probably doesn't know any of this.
-
An even better example of the transparency of the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent used is the second stage (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2n2tab) (go to 7:10) of the Delta II rocket. Just a brief belch and then no visible exhaust. You can even see the engine bell glowing (https://youtu.be/7pkbwdbBy0k?t=40) in the shadow, but, again, no visible exhaust except that start up burp. The Titan 2 first stage isn't quite the best example, because the air pressure around it confines the exhaust column, and air reacts with unburnt propellent to create the orange clouds nitrogen dioxide, neither which, obviously, would happen on the moon.
-
the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent
hypergolic propellant. The term originates in Germany, and it refers to a fuel/oxidizer combination that ignites spontaneously on contact, without an igniter.
All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).
-
the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent
hypergolic propellant.
All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).
Very true, but this mixture seems to be particularly transparent. While the Falcon second stage liquid oxygen/kerosene exhaust is just visible in SpaceX's video, Delta II 2nd stage uses the exact same propellent as the LM.
And my bad on the spelling. I am familiar with the concept.
-
the exhaust of the hyperbolic propellent
hypergolic propellant.
All rocket engines, except solid fuel, seem to have invisible or nearly invisible plumes in space except for those startup transients you mentioned. Even SpaceX's kerosene/LOX upper stage, which surprised me because kerosene's plume is so bright in the atmosphere. In vacuum the plume expands much more rapidly after leaving the engine nozzle, and there's no oxygen to burn the exhaust (all rocket engines I know of operate on a rich mixture).
Very true, but this mixture seems to be particularly transparent. While the Falcon second stage liquid oxygen/kerosene exhaust is just visible in SpaceX's video, Delta II 2nd stage uses the exact same propellent as the LM.
And my bad on the spelling. I am familiar with the concept.
It seems no matter how many times the HB crowd are told about the nearly invisible flame, this "concern" keeps popping up. I try to link a Gemini 11 or 12 earth launch to debunk it.
-
Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?
I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this
(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)
GoPro wasn't in existence in the 60's-70's
To be fair, small 16mm data acquisition cameras did exist and were used in cockpits - the X-15 cockpit films come to mind, as do the ones used to film astronaut reaction in Mercury.
In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot. The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot. In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.
I suspect that by the time Apollo came along, the perceived need to film the astronauts had pretty much been obviated, so they didn't bother.
Finally, in-cockpit films of pilots are boring! Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).
-
I think at this point it's worth reminding everyone about tarkus' first post on this forum, which contained a link to a video showing the Apollo 13 crew in their spaceship.
-
Tarkus, how do you think somebody "drives" a spaceship?
I guess in the strange world which tarkus claims to inhibit it should look more like this
(F1 cockpit cam: See the driver at work)
GoPro wasn't in existence in the 60's-70's
To be fair, small 16mm data acquisition cameras did exist and were used in cockpits - the X-15 cockpit films come to mind, as do the ones used to film astronaut reaction in Mercury.
In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot. The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot. In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.
I suspect that by the time Apollo came along, the perceived need to film the astronauts had pretty much been obviated, so they didn't bother.
Finally, in-cockpit films of pilots are boring! Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).
Film yes, but not continuous live TV broadcasts, of activities.
-
In the X-15, the camera was used to record the instrument panel, not so much the pilot. The famous footage of Michael Adams' fatal flight clearly shows that the pilot was almost in the way of what was being recorded, being an over-the-shoulder shot. In Mercury, the astronaut was the main subject of the experiment, so naturally his reaction would be filmed.
I did not no such footage existed, let alone being "famous". Without being morbid (I hope), is it available on line?
-
Yes - the film got light shot after the crash, so the last few feet showing the actual crash was wiped out.
-
I don't know about plane crashes, but in the few automobile accidents I have everything seemed to go in slow motion. Of course a camera wouldn't sense that.
-
For fun:
lol knew this photo but this proves anything? What I see here is a man in a mock spaceship and illuminated with black background, nothing more.
I was talking about something else ...
I don't care :)
It's a photo of human being at the controls of a lunar module, one of a series of photos that start with a very distant LM against the moon. A sequence that was also captured on 16mm footage.
Do try keeping your goalposts in the same place for a few minutes.
This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.
-
This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.
And what evidence do you have that this was actually the case?
This is just one of hundreds of still pictures taken during each Apollo mission. There is also 16mm movie film showing the same events from both directions. Many of the pictures and films show the moon below, and some have the earth in the distance. They are correctly lit for when they were taken, and the moon below is correct for the locations where they were taken. These views also match modern photos taken from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
We have recordings and transcripts of the crews during these missions. We have detailed mission reports on the trajectories and performance of the spacecraft involved. We have detailed engineering handbooks describing how the systems worked.
What more do you need besides a graceful way to save face as you admit that you were wrong?
-
This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.
Your goalposts have afterburners. Do you even listen to yourself? You were trying to make a point by saying that it was suspicious no photos existed of astronauts at the controls of a spaceship. No photos existed, was your claim. If Apollo had been real, you insinuated, they would have taken pictures of astronauts flying spaceships.
Then when the artifact you say doesn't exist is shoved under your nose, you forget all about what it was you thought its conspicuous absence proved. You lurch frantically from one knee-jerk claim to another without showing any evidence that you've done an iota of research or expended a single neuron's thought. I echo sts60's question: does it ever occur to you to change your mind when you're proven egregiously wrong on about the facts?
-
What's more, I don't give one good god damn about what "could be." What I care about is what there is evidence to show. Tarkus, you have never shown evidence, because you're too busy refusing to see the evidence that's in front of you. Show me how the hoax was done, in as much detail as NASA has shown that the landings took place as described, and we're getting somewhere. "It could have" doesn't mean a thing.
-
This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.
If it was fake then how would it have been filmed? You completely disregard any evidence that we spoon feed you.
-
Tarkus, you said such imagery did not exist. You were wrong. Please don't try to change the subject before dealing with your error. And please answer my questions (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1003.msg34798#msg34798).
-
Just to test a personal hypothesis could you tell me the capital of France?
Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...
-
Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...
When I frequented the wilds of YouTube comments section I tried a similar approach from time to time. I was never expecting an answer, it was more to demonstrate the double standards by which HBs operate, namely Never A Straight Answer.
-
This does not prove that this module is nowhere
Shifting the burden of proof- a classic hoaxie technique to avoid addressing that what has been claimed not to exist does in fact exist (namely, images of astronauts at the controls). You need to understand the burden of proof (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof) and the obligations that it places on you.
This does not prove that this module is nowhere, could be in a suspended cable studio behind a black curtain, not proof that someone is driving, only one head is seen behind a window.
Indeed it could. However, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that claim. And any evidence that you would use would have to explain the chain of still frames and video that the image in question forms a part of. After all, that image isn't the only image of the sequence. Nor is it a single piece of evidence on which the whole veracity of the mission relies on.
As an example I could easily claim that you are nothing more than a script running on a machine somewhere that constantly regurgitates long-debunked hoax nonsense. Now, you know that that is not the case*, so it would be up to me to prove it. The burden of proof is mine, and mine alone in this case. You do not have to prove that you are human, it's up to me to prove that you are a script. If I demanded that you prove that you are a human, then you can rightfully wave my claim away as arrant nonsense.
You will (hopefully) notice that that is not what tends to happen here. People here go way above what's required to try and show you the fallacy of your ways and even to try an educate some sense into you. Do not interpret this as weakness or as an acknowledgement that the burden of proof does not sit with you. However when you continue to wilfully ignore those attempts, shift the goalpost or go off on a gish-gallop, then you will understand that it's human nature for people to reserve the right to offer you further politeness.
*That you are a human, not a script running on a machine. The bit about regurgitating long-debunked hoax nonsense is all too plain to see! ;)
-
Even watching footage of a pilot flying aerobatics is dull - it's someone sitting there moving some controls (even the famous GIF of the topless woman doing rolls just gets dull after a few repetitions).
I'd have to personally test the hypothesis that such a GIF would get dull after a few repetitions... Link? ;D
-
Well, it was offtopic, but it's quite telling that tarkus couldn't even write a simple answer that would have consisted of a single word with mere five letters...
When I frequented the wilds of YouTube comments section I tried a similar approach from time to time. I was never expecting an answer, it was more to demonstrate the double standards by which HBs operate, namely Never A Straight Answer.
Indeed a double standard OR change the subject I personally tell them to stick to the subject, unsuccessfully at times
-
Well, to be fair, there are two entirely different conversations being had, and thus two meta-levels to any question as well. When we ask "What is the capital of France?" or "Tell us something you are enthused about and expert on" or some other attempt to elicit the kind of communication (and the thought behind it) that we find substantive, the hoax believer from their background can only interpret such questions as some kind of attack.
We're largely in the business of teaching, and learning, and one of our frequent questions is, "How DO we know what we know?" They are in the business of convincing, and everything is either emotional currency or a debating tactic. Words are only to be used for their connotations, never for their literal meaning.
Thus such questions as "What is the capital of France?" get ignored.
-
The Socratic Method isn't always appreciated.
I drive a Nissan Leaf EV, and I frequently encounter other drivers at public charging sites. Recently I met two guys who were not regular drivers; they had been hired to deliver the car. They didn't have a fast charge port so they were wondering how long they had to stay connected to the slow charger. They were taking the (estimated) range indicator a little too seriously, so I pointed out that it'd be a good idea to allow a safety margin.
"Which way?" one of them asked, in all apparent seriousness. He couldn't tell if I meant that he should get a little more range -- or less.
"What do you think safety margin means?" I said.
"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"
-
"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"
Reminds me of sitting with the producer of the unaired History Channel pilot. "So how powerful are the Van Allen belts really?" he asked. Through my mind went the variables that go into the AP8 and AE8 models, their geometry, and the vast array of possible departure orbits. "It really depends on quite a number of factors." Keep in mind this guy is a friend, and completely sympathetic to my cause. "Well, you know, just on average." I debated trying to sketch them and showing how the differences in zones are exponential. I debated throwing out a straw man. In the end the latter is what I did. "For a typical interplanetary departure,..." Still I'm firmly convinced that this producer -- an intelligent and conscientious man -- will cite my figure (which I do not even recall) as that established by the aerospace engineering community.
These days I ask in advance: "Do you want the real answer or the simple answer?"
-
Bravo, Jay... That's the question I ask my students on a daily basis.
Do you want the real answer or the simple one.
They don't yet know how complicated their intended field of study is.
-
"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"
Reminds me of sitting with the producer of the unaired History Channel pilot. "So how powerful are the Van Allen belts really?" he asked. Through my mind went the variables that go into the AP8 and AE8 models, their geometry, and the vast array of possible departure orbits. "It really depends on quite a number of factors." Keep in mind this guy is a friend, and completely sympathetic to my cause. "Well, you know, just on average." I debated trying to sketch them and showing how the differences in zones are exponential. I debated throwing out a straw man. In the end the latter is what I did. "For a typical interplanetary departure,..." Still I'm firmly convinced that this producer -- an intelligent and conscientious man -- will cite my figure (which I do not even recall) as that established by the aerospace engineering community.
These days I ask in advance: "Do you want the real answer or the simple answer?"
Or what does your audience consist of?
-
Bravo, Jay... That's the question I ask my students on a daily basis.
Do you want the real answer or the simple one.
They don't yet know how complicated their intended field of study is.
Sounds like me at work: "Do you want the book answer or the one you can use to write a capital budget?"
-
They don't yet know how complicated their intended field of study is.
Few do. The keepers are the ones who, at first, say "The easy one," and then come to you later, cap in hand, to solicit the real answer. The joy of your profession is watching these youngsters immerse themselves in the reality.
A friend of mine sent me a link to an auction of 4,192 words of erasable core memory used on one of the Gemini flights. The bids are expected to finish around $2,000. I'm looking at my bank account and credit lines. And I owe it all to my professors and original professional mentors, all of whom worked on those projects.
-
-
I also like this Feynman video as I think that it describes very well the position of not only hoaxies, but also many members of the general public. They ask, what they think is a very simple question, without realising that to answer the question one has to have a base of common understanding on which to stand on.
-
Like a guy in a desert who stumbles over a rock, decides to dig it out, and ends up with a pyramid where his original rock is the point.
-
Like a guy in a desert who stumbles over a rock, decides to dig it out, and ends up with a pyramid where his original rock is the point.
That's a nice analogy, thank you. I'm borrowing that one! :)
-
"Leave it up to an engineer, they can never give you a straight answer!"
Reminds me of sitting with the producer of the unaired History Channel pilot. "So how powerful are the Van Allen belts really?" he asked. Through my mind went the variables that go into the AP8 and AE8 models, their geometry, and the vast array of possible departure orbits. "It really depends on quite a number of factors." Keep in mind this guy is a friend, and completely sympathetic to my cause. "Well, you know, just on average." I debated trying to sketch them and showing how the differences in zones are exponential. I debated throwing out a straw man. In the end the latter is what I did. "For a typical interplanetary departure,..." Still I'm firmly convinced that this producer -- an intelligent and conscientious man -- will cite my figure (which I do not even recall) as that established by the aerospace engineering community.
These days I ask in advance: "Do you want the real answer or the simple answer?"
You've reminded me of a section of Mike Gray's Angle of Attack, the book about Harrison "Stormy" Storms and North American Aviation's involvement in Apollo. It's Gray's description of the House of Representatives inquiry into the Apollo 1 accident:What followed over the next few days was the inevitable clash between alien cultures. The engineers and the politicians spoke different languages and worshipped different gods; throughout the hearings they would give the impression they were communicating, but they were not. The politicians wanted answers to simple questions like "Who did it?" The engineers misinterpreted the questions and then responded in detail with maddening precision. At one point, Pennsylvania's Jim Fulton got tired of the blizzard of facts; he wanted to get down to cases. "Would this wiring pass the ordinary town's wiring standard for homes?"
There was an interminable silence as Max Faget stared at the ceiling. Finally he said, "Yes sir, I think it would."
Fulton wanted to know why it took so long for an answer.
"I was trying to recall all the towns I knew."
-
I've found it myself when people ask what they think is a simple question that they expect will get a simple answer, when in reality the answer is invariably "it depends..."