Author Topic: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook  (Read 12247 times)

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2018, 11:52:18 AM »
That video isn't valid.  I did search hunchy's site and found a couple of videos that deal with LM's RCS system.
ApolloWasReal took him to task as he(ApolloWasReal) loved to correct him and make him look stupid.  Hunch has an aerospace engineering degree, but he pretends to know a lot about the electronics of Apollo, but unfortunately for him he grew up in the world of integrated circuits not the rather primitive 60's systems.  Although I'm not an electronics engineer, those were probably state of the art in the 60's, but not by todays circuitry.  I left a couple of comments to other posters who follow mimic his stupidness.

ETA videos I found

<videos snipped for brevity>
Well, what these videos tell me is that he doesn't understand the issue of design and engineering constraints in developing something as complex as the Apollo spacecraft system.  There are very good reasons why the RCS engines weren't throttleable, and why a modulated signal was used.

He also apparently doesn't understand the circuit diagrams, control systems in general, physics, photography, perspective, or even how the videos of the ascents from the surface were controlled.

As for the "quality" of the videos, they may be tailored for his audience, but they look like they've been put together (badly) by an eight-year-old who's just figured out basic editing.

On the plus side, this discussion has sparked my interest in how the RCS control systems worked, so I'm now learning more about this.  There's a lot of information online, including the circuit diagrams he thinks are wrong, so no shortage of material to study! :)
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3793
    • Clavius
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2018, 12:44:48 PM »
Well, what these videos tell me is that he doesn't understand the issue of design and engineering constraints in developing something as complex as the Apollo spacecraft system.  There are very good reasons why the RCS engines weren't throttleable, and why a modulated signal was used.

He also apparently doesn't understand the circuit diagrams, control systems in general, physics, photography, perspective, or even how the videos of the ascents from the surface were controlled.

This is what makes us question whether he really has any aerospace training or experience.  He doesn't seem to know anything about engineering in general, or anything specifically about how flying machines are actually designed, built, and operated.  Now a lot of people don't know how those things are done.  But he postures himself as a skilled, trained professional.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline benparry

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2018, 04:09:57 PM »
Well, what these videos tell me is that he doesn't understand the issue of design and engineering constraints in developing something as complex as the Apollo spacecraft system.  There are very good reasons why the RCS engines weren't throttleable, and why a modulated signal was used.

He also apparently doesn't understand the circuit diagrams, control systems in general, physics, photography, perspective, or even how the videos of the ascents from the surface were controlled.

This is what makes us question whether he really has any aerospace training or experience.  He doesn't seem to know anything about engineering in general, or anything specifically about how flying machines are actually designed, built, and operated.  Now a lot of people don't know how those things are done.  But he postures himself as a skilled, trained professional.


isn't that what most hb's do Jay lol

if you ever fancy a laugh there is a facebook group called Manned Lunar Landing Hoax. take a look at 2 peoples posts there. Michael Lurie and Alf Beharie.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2018, 05:17:23 PM »
He also apparently doesn't understand the circuit diagrams, control systems in general, physics, photography, perspective, or even how the videos of the ascents from the surface were controlled.
You don't say. Years ago I tried to explain to him why the ascent stage propellant tanks are asymmetrically placed. That's basic physics understood intuitively by any kid who's ever used a seesaw. But not hunchbacked.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3793
    • Clavius
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2018, 02:20:31 PM »
You don't say. Years ago I tried to explain to him why the ascent stage propellant tanks are asymmetrically placed. That's basic physics understood intuitively by any kid who's ever used a seesaw. But not hunchbacked.

Has he demonstrated even slight competence in any discipline that would support the claim to have a diploma in aerospace engineering?  I would like to think he's not blatantly lying, but perhaps that he may have extended a qualification in some allied field that might let him make that claim in hopes it won't be too closely questioned.  Conversely I would hate to believe that an accredited aerospace engineering program has given a diploma to such an obviously unqualified student.

And yes, I would expect the concept of a moment arm to be intuitively obvious without training.  Cantilevers are all over the place in life, even if you don't know them by those names.  I would expect it to be rationally understood by someone who passed high school physics, if only to know that a formula applies that can result in equal moments for different masses and moment-arm lengths.  And from someone who claims to be a qualified aerospace engineer speaking as an expert on the subject of spacecraft stability and dynamic control, I would expect the ability to express the problem in the full linear-algebra formulation within the free-body generalized solution that has been the worldwide standard for many decades.  (It is, in fact, the formalization MIT used in devising the LM's dynamic control system.)  I can't fathom that someone whose understanding is at least two rungs down the ladder from the publicly-available state of the art is honestly portraying himself as an expert.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2018, 03:04:43 PM »
I can't fathom that someone whose understanding is at least two rungs down the ladder from the publicly-available state of the art is honestly portraying himself as an expert.
Well, he is. And I've never been able to figure out if he honestly believes what he says. He acts like it, though.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2018, 11:47:48 PM »
Well, what these videos tell me is that he doesn't understand the issue of design and engineering constraints in developing something as complex as the Apollo spacecraft system.  There are very good reasons why the RCS engines weren't throttleable, and why a modulated signal was used.

He also apparently doesn't understand the circuit diagrams, control systems in general, physics, photography, perspective, or even how the videos of the ascents from the surface were controlled.

This is what makes us question whether he really has any aerospace training or experience.  He doesn't seem to know anything about engineering in general, or anything specifically about how flying machines are actually designed, built, and operated.  Now a lot of people don't know how those things are done.  But he postures himself as a skilled, trained professional.
He uses a lot of wire diagram noting "now this can't work" or words to that effect.  They are produced for the novice that can easily grasp the "simple" concept of what he is trying to describe.  Personally I don't understand some of the electronics, others I can understand.  The real kicker that I have with him is his lack of visual perception.  Many times he will describe in his videos what the observers should see, then shows that to be correct only to indicate it doesn't show what he described.  I find it difficult to describe because he actually shows the phenomenon he discusses.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2018, 01:18:03 PM »
There's some analysis of the faked Apollo 11/Earth mash-up photo on Metabunk here: https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-does-this-apollo11-photo-act-so-weirdly.t8894/

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3793
    • Clavius
Re: Debate with hunchbacked on facebook
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2018, 11:56:50 AM »
He uses a lot of wire diagram noting "now this can't work" or words to that effect.  They are produced for the novice that can easily grasp the "simple" concept of what he is trying to describe.

And I would say that's because his own understanding is simplistic.  He can say "It's supposed to be like this," and a layman can understand that.  28V DC circuits are not, by themselves, rocket science.  If you've installed your own lawn sprinklers, you can grasp something of what's going on.  But advanced concepts like modulation or switch-in spares aren't intuitively obvious from that perspective.

At the broader scope, this is mostly how a lot of fringe theories work.  "It's supposed to be like this, but it's like that instead -- therefore conspiracy."  It's an argument meant to jump over the rationale for "it's supposed to be like this."  Most of those arguments come from lay claimants relying on intuition or poor research.  Some few, like Hunchbacked, claim expertise.  In most cases that brand of claimant is careful not to expose his expectations to those who really know the field because they'll quickly be found out.  But as many have noted, Hunchbacked doesn't seem bothered by being revealed as ignorant time after time and creating controversy over whether he really believes his own hype.  I've seen a very few who are so far gone as to think their fantasy world is real to everyone else too.

Quote
The real kicker that I have with him is his lack of visual perception.  Many times he will describe in his videos what the observers should see, then shows that to be correct only to indicate it doesn't show what he described.  I find it difficult to describe because he actually shows the phenomenon he discusses.

That sort of person is the kind I generally leave alone.  If they don't understand their own arguments, no amount of correct refutation will be effective.  Analogously what has happened in the past with a few is that they get so wound up in fighting the good fight, discrediting their critics, etc. that they don't bother to connect the argument du jour with any of their claims.  The argument never rises beyond casting random aspersions.  But beyond that there is a small class of people who really don't get how a line of reasoning works, how ipso facto works, or what a logical inference is.  They are left to a cargo-cult style of argumentation.  I remember when Hunchbacked was trying to argue about the hardware and software of the guidance computer, and based all his expectations on modern Intel-based personal computers.  It didn't seem to occur to him that a computer could be designed and built any other way.  It's very difficult to argue with someone who doesn't know what he doesn't know, and isn't the least suspicious that there might be things he doesn't know.

As for spatial perception, this is important if you want to be an aerospace engineer.  I give all my design engineering candidates a standardized spatial reasoning test, and you have to score pretty high on it to advance.  And you need a high score because spatial reasoning is the heart and soul of any brand of engineering that involves actual objects in a three-dimensional environment.  The same skills are required of a successful airplane pilot.  There is a rigorous framework of mathematics that governs the science of spacecraft dynamic control.  And that formalism is important to guaranteeing a correct solution.  But the nuts and bolts of a practical solution comes from second-nature understanding of spatial relationships.  It has to exist in your head first, and then you adjust it to the formalism.  And this is why I have a hard time believing Hunchbacked has any sort of real qualification in aerospace engineering.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams