Also, others have been there with robotic probes.And will be soon again. China plans to put a rover on the moon in 2015.
im a firm believer that usa landed on the moon. but i wonder why no one has been there ?so there was a race to the moon with russia , but they never continued their program. and no one sinceAnother factor to consider about why the Soviets never landed on the Moon is that this was the era of the Cold War. For those who didn't live through it, it can be hard to comprehend how so many activities of the two superpowers were undertaken with the intent of showing themselves in the best light and The Other Guys in the worst light. Hence the tension which accompanied even the Olympic Games, and why, for example, the members of the American basketball team of the 1972 Olympics have never accepted their silver medals following defeat by the Soviets.
and no one since
Also, one particular failed N1 launch, exploded on the pad, creating a severe delay.
N1-5L, I believe, the second test launch.
I believe that is the one of which there is footage on the Tube of You ... which very convincingly makes the point that the Soviet launch vehicle was made from Explodium.
Especially as it had IIRC 32 engines on the first stage and didn't get the funding for full scale static testing to try and work out the inevitable problems before an actual launch.N1-5L, I believe, the second test launch.
I believe that is the one of which there is footage on the Tube of You ... which very convincingly makes the point that the Soviet launch vehicle was made from Explodium.
Of course, any liquid fuelled rocket can be said to be made of Explodium, the Saturn V has been said to contain the equivalent power of a small nuclear bomb, and the N1 was approximately equivalent.
In any case, yes, it goes off with a hell of a bang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHIrKE2HqQ).
Especially as it had IIRC 32 engines on the first stage and didn't get the funding for full scale static testing to try and work out the inevitable problems before an actual launch.
Another factor in the Soviet failure was that there was there was no single lunar program. Instead of focusing all of their energy on one program, like the Americans, the Soviets had parallel programs under development at the same time by different design bureaus. The bureaus had to fight and compete for resources, resulting in underfunded programs. Had they picked just one program and thrown all their efforts behind it, perhaps they would have been more successful.
In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed. Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon. That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.Interesting idea. Sure, they messed it up through poor planning and flawed technology, but in those mysoginistic days first woman on the moon might very well have been a coup.
In short, the reason the Soviet Union didn't land humans on the Moon was that the Soviet system failed. Though if they had bothered to continue their lunar program after Apollo, it's interesting to consider whether or not they would have bothered putting the first woman on the Moon. That, at least, would have been a nice propaganda coup.
They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
"...600 million metric tons distributed among 40 craters near the lunar north pole."
You're absolutely right, Patrick. They never went there. In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you. 6 times they found nothing interesting? But they kept going back to the lunar equator? Now that's stupid. Why didn't they go to the north pole? They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death. But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks. They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
Any more stupid arguments for us?
Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now? And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
You're absolutely right, Patrick. They never went there. In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you. 6 times they found nothing interesting? But they kept going back to the lunar equator? Now that's stupid. Why didn't they go to the north pole? They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death. But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks. They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
Any more stupid arguments for us?
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now? And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
Not even trying any more, are you Alex?Just stating the facts. You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment. And, how do you know it's nonsense? You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told. You believe what you want to believe. It's comforting for you to say you think like most people. I understand about wanting to fit in. For 40 years I thought we went to the moon. Then I looked into it. I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once. (I can't believe I fell for that one.) But that's what woke me up. What else were they lying about? It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it. You're afraid of the mere possibility. It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility. How do you know what you think you know? Did you figure it out, or did you just take somebody's word for it? Do you believe everything the govt tells you????
Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now? And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once. (I can't believe I fell for that one.)
NASA gets paid to lie. I don't.
Still looking for other people to do your research for you?Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now? And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
I seem to be the only one doing research. Somebody like you telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit. NASA gets paid to lie. I don't.
I seem to be the only one doing research.
Somebody like you...
...telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.
NASA gets paid to lie. I don't.
Just stating the facts.
You're absolutely right, Patrick. They never went there. In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you. 6 times they found nothing interesting? But they kept going back to the lunar equator? Now that's stupid. Why didn't they go to the north pole? They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death. But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks. They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
Any more stupid arguments for us?
Handwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go. Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Prove they lie. You have yet to prove a single thing. Plenty of handwaving though.
QuoteHandwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go. Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Prove they lie. You have yet to prove a single thing. Plenty of handwaving though.
Handwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?)
Tell ya what...
...why don't you get me...
I happen to know...
...anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer...
...and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Then you're all wrong. And did everyone elect you to speak for them? This is Ad Hominem.Just stating the facts.
Facts like pretending to be an engineer when WE ALL KNOW that you are not?
Such a stupid lie, from a proven liar.
Thank you for asking.Rubbish? Really? What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?They say they went there 6 times and didn't find even one single thing of interest, like water.
Rubbish. For example the Apollo-sourced samples dramatically changed our view on the genesis of the Moon.
We are still learning from the Apollo-sourced moonrocks. A study in 2010 by James Greenwood identified comets as the likely source of deuterium in the Apollo samples.
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.
They didn't all land on the Moon's equator. Apollo 17 landed at 20 degrees north, and Apollo 15 landed at 26 degrees north. That was about as far from the equator as their fuel would allow them.You're absolutely right, Patrick. They never went there. In fact all six landings were close to the lunar equator, so they never went to the lunar North Pole.Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you. 6 times they found nothing interesting? But they kept going back to the lunar equator? Now that's stupid. Why didn't they go to the north pole? They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death. But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks. They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
Any more stupid arguments for us?
This is Ad Hominem.
Funny that, on some other site, they were calling me a government shill for saying the ISS was real. How come nobody here can debate my arguments? Only call me a liar repeatedly. Is anybody here over 15? I'm just asking because you never know.I seem to be the only one doing research.
Are you still here? haven't you been humiliated enough?
QuoteSomebody like you...
What the hell does "someone like you" mean?Quote...telling me what NASA said they did is not research, it's spreading bullshit.
Listen very carefully....what you just said only reflects on YOUR IGNORANCE. The Apollo missions ARE ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL FACT. You may disagree with that, but no one is going to take you seriously as long as you behave like a child.
Do you at least understand that your behavior "turns off" anyone who might be willing to listen to you?
You are basically are your own worst enemy...and you can't see it.QuoteNASA gets paid to lie. I don't.
I simply do not believe you based on your posts...you say you don't lie, but one of the very first things the people on this board did when you arrived was catch you in a lie.
If you have the truth on your "side", then why do you find it necessary to lie?
..and of course...once caught in a lie, no one will take you seriously ever again.
As I posted...you are your own worst enemy.
Of course, if you find one, we know you'll claim it's fake.QuoteHandwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.
Prove they lie. You have yet to prove a single thing. Plenty of handwaving though.
Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.Where'd you go to college?
Then you're all wrong.Just stating the facts.
Facts like pretending to be an engineer when WE ALL KNOW that you are not?
Such a stupid lie, from a proven liar.
And did everyone elect you to speak for them?
This is Ad Hominem.
How come nobody here can debate my arguments?
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
How come nobody here can debate my arguments?
Only call me a liar repeatedly.
Is anybody here over 15? I'm just asking because you never know.
This is Ad Hominem.
An ad hominem argument would be to say someone was wrong because they are a liar. Calling one a liar is a claim that they have recklessly disregarded the truth.
Is anybody here over 15?
QuoteHandwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go. Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Prove they lie. You have yet to prove a single thing. Plenty of handwaving though.
why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.Why do you keep trying to snow a group of people who actually know what they're talking about?
they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.Give me a break! The Apollo LM IMU was aligned with references already available everywhere on the moon: local gravity and the stars. Finding the CSM did not require the LM to know its own precise position in lunar coordinates. It only needed to precisely measure its position relative to the CSM, which it did with a device called a rendezvous radar. See if you can hazard a guess from its name why it had one.
Rubbish? Really?
What was the view on the genesis of the Moon prior to Apollo, and what is that view now?About 5 minutes with Google will answer that. As a qualified "engineer" you should be familiar with doing research. heck..an 8-year old child would be able to find the details. But please don't expect me to do your research for you, Alexsanchez.
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Uh, huh....when will you be giving us that contact information for your "engineer buddies" so that we may confirm that you are, indded, an engineer?Why do we need the man's credentials when it is already patently obvious that his "engineering skills" are limited to throwing a few buzzwords around with no understanding of what they mean?
Handwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon.
Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.Here you go, chief:
I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.That drum that you keep on banging must be nearly worn through by now? Just because you repeatedly ignore evidence to the contrary of your claim doesn't make you right. It makes you wilfully ignorant.
And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.Erm...isn't that for you to do? You've been asked to provide evidence to support the claim that you are an engineer, that your worked under Air Force contracts, that you worked at the Cape. Have you done any of that yet?
you need to put up some money and bet me.
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
QuoteNot even trying any more, are you Alex?Just stating the facts. You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment. And, how do you know it's nonsense? You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told. You believe what you want to believe. It's comforting for you to say you think like most people. I understand about wanting to fit in. For 40 years I thought we went to the moon. Then I looked into it. I also believed muslims with box cutters brought down the WTC, and that kerosene melts steel such that 110 stories collapse all at once. (I can't believe I fell for that one.) But that's what woke me up. What else were they lying about? It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it. You're afraid of the mere possibility. It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility. How do you know what you think you know? Did you figure it out, or did you just take somebody's word for it? Do you believe everything the govt tells you????
Give up and go somewhere where your nonsense will be appreciated like abovetopsecret or infowars.
6 times they found nothing interesting?
And, what's the difference between moon rocks from the moon, and moon rocks from Antarctica?
Just stating the facts.
You like my "nonsense" otherwise you wouldn't have posted a comment.
And, how do you know it's nonsense? You only know what you think you know because that's what you've been told.
For 40 years I thought we went to the moon. Then I looked into it.
It scares you to think that the moon landings might have been faked, doesn't it. You're afraid of the mere possibility. It's easier to just say something is nonsense than face the truth, or even face the possibility.
Do you believe everything the govt tells you????
I seem to be the only one doing research.
Handwaving? I'm just talking way over your head.
I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go. Until the time comes that somebody does that,
all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.
I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon.
And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.
Why do we need the man's credentials when it is already patently obvious that his "engineering skills" are limited to throwing a few buzzwords around with no understanding of what they mean?
I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go. Until the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact.
Funny that, on some other site, they were calling me a government shill for saying the ISS was real. How come nobody here can debate my arguments? Only call me a liar repeatedly. Is anybody here over 15? I'm just asking because you never know.
How your presence here will be seen by readers is entirely up to you.
... And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.That's nice. I used to work for Max Faget and Caldwell Johnson, as well as working with other Apollo-era and later engineers and astronauts.
How come nobody here can debate my arguments? Only call me a liar repeatedly.
Is anybody here over 15? I'm just asking because you never know.
I'm a middle-aged professional engineer.
And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me.
...or the Tortoise.
According to my reading, I'm officially middle-aged to the obstetrical community. I'm a year older than your son.
I freely admit that I'm not an engineer. However, that isn't at all the same as just taking what I've read as fact without thinking about it.
A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.
Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.
Drexel University, BSEE, 1980Of course, if you find one, we know you'll claim it's fake.QuoteHandwaving? I'm just talking way over your head. (What have you ever proven?) Tell ya what... why don't you get me $50 million and I'll prove whether they landed on the moon or not. $50 million is the cost of sending a rocket to the moon. I just need to fly over a landing site and beam back a camera image. If there's no descent stage, then they didn't go.
Prove they lie. You have yet to prove a single thing. Plenty of handwaving though.QuoteUntil the time comes that somebody does that, all we can prove is that it was infinitely easier to fake it than go to the moon, and that's a fact. I happen to know that they didn't go to the moon because they would have needed to do an IMU alignment on the moon, which they couldn't do, because they had no survey marker on the moon. And, anybody who wants me to prove I'm an engineer, and that I worked on the Delta rocket, and the ISS, you need to put up some money and bet me. A Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker. Another co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics. I used to party with those guys. I've used them as work references. My college roommate is a director of engineering at Panasonic.Where'd you go to college?
Drexel University, BSEE, 1980
Another thing:"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."QuoteA Director of Engineering at Boeing is a former co-worker.
Cool. You can ask him about Boeing's work on constructing the Lunar Orbiter probes, the first stage of the Saturn V and the Lunar Roving Vehicle.QuoteAnother co-worker is a Chief Engineer at General Dynamics.
Another excellent one. You can talk to him about the General Dynamics manned lunar spacecraft proposals that were part of the contract bidding at the start of Apollo. You can ask about the work they did designing the Little Joe II solid rocket used for testing the Apollo launch abort and escape systems. Talk to him about the company's Atlas rockets that were used to launch the first manned orbital missions. You could even ask if he was at the company in the early 90s when Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders was chairman and CEO.
I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task, in which case we would certainly be interested to hear from them. After all, one of them had a plan for the entire manned lunar epxloration program drawn up and submitted, so they must have had some idea of the engineering challenges involved. Alternatively, you made the classic layman mistake of thinking NASA did it all themselves rather than contracting the work out, and in fact had no idea that Boeing and General Dynamics played such a key role in the entire Apollo program (or manned spaceflight in general). Given some of your earlier assertions I'm inclined to believe this is more likely....
"I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."Now I'm really confused. See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM. The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?
Why would you make an assumption like that? I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
Why would you make an assumption like that? I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
I used to do some work in the S-IVb building at McDonnell Douglas, HBCA.
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard."I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."Now I'm really confused. See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM. The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?
Why would you make an assumption like that? I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?
Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree. I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10641#msg10641). You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.This is just a cop-out to avoid answering questions about your engineering qualifications. ::)
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them?
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government.
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.) There are also martian rocks on earth. Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.) Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?
They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."
How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?
So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government.
Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?
Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
Obviously I meant to say Buzz Lightyear.So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
What a sad, pathetic thing to say. If this really is the way you live in the world, I actually pity you.
Troll.Oh yeah... well, I'm rubber and you're glue...
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?Evidence that NASA said anything of the kind?
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you? You are very gullible and very naive. I pity you. You are a sheep. Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order. I must force you sheeple to wake up. It's for your own good. Evil awaits you unless you follow me.To quote the actual Buzz Lightyear, "You are a sad, strange, little man, and you have my pity."
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you? You are very gullible and very naive. I pity you. You are a sheep. Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order. I must force you sheeple to wake up. It's for your own good. Evil awaits you unless you follow me.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them?Brushes don't get broader than this. If this is your best shot, then you have failed even to make sense.
Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
I know where they weren't.
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)
Quite true.There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.) There are also martian rocks on earth.If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.Do you say this of the scientists from around the world who've examined the rocks supplied by the Apollo missions?
They look at them and say, "These rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, and of being altered by solar radiation and micrometeor impact. NASA says they're from the Moon, and they're consistent with that. They aren't from the Earth, and they didn't come to the Earth as meteorites."
How else did they come to the Earth if not by collection on the Apollo missions?
Lunar meteorites collected in Antarctica show evidence of passing through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, and of contamination by the Earth. The Apollo rocks show no such signs, and instead show signs of having been struck by micrometeorites (called zap pits) and solar radiation. There is no technology to recreate zap pits.
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)Not so fast.
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.Read the sentence you quoted. "Debris" not "chunk". I'm sure you read the rest of that article, which included this statement: "While similar to terrestrial basalts, the mare basalts have much higher abundances of iron and are completely lacking in minerals altered by water." They also, as I mentioned above, show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, which is not indicative of terrestrial origin.
"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.Oh, the humour...
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets. That was 1991.I find it hard to make the comparison. (1) The LM and CSM were heading in the same direction. The Patriots and Scuds were heading in opposite directions. Therefore the closing speeds were very different. (2) The LM and CSM were human controlled, with the rendezvous radar providing information, not controlling a spacecraft. (3) The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.
what about the insults towards me? But, I can always sign on as somebody else.Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you? You are very gullible and very naive. I pity you. You are a sheep. Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order. I must force you sheeple to wake up. It's for your own good. Evil awaits you unless you follow me.
More insults. I've added you to the moderation list. I'll have to approve your posts before they appear in the forum, which as Heiwa can attest, sometimes takes a while. If you want to speed up the process you'll have to behave.
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.Unresponsive. I'm asking the questions because you are making an appeal to authority - in this case, your authority as a reputed expert: an engineer who has extensive aerospace experience and has done GNC work, which is at the very core of your claim that the LM's scheme was inadequate.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them?Standard conspiracist rhetoric. Yet you apparently "believe them" when it comes to the reality of the ISS. So you've shown the government doesn't lie "all the time", thus one has to evaluate the government claims the same way one evaluates your claims: by investigating and using actual expertise.
The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion.Nonsense. I work in this field, and I have evaluated the Apollo record in reasonable detail and found it makes hard engineering and scientific sense. I've also worked with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts and can judge their competence and integrity for myself.
I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.The Apollo record isn't gospel revealed to the masses who can only choose to believe or disbelieve. You are clearly unfamiliar with the scientific and technical record, and do not grasp the breadth and depth of what is publicly - and easily - available for examination.
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong. The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion. I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds. Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard."I am assuming that you think these people will support your assertion that Apollo was faked because the engineering was not up to the task..."Now I'm really confused. See, you said you were an engineer, and that you worked guidance, and that Apollo didn't have an appropriate way to guide the LM. The correctness of this claim aside, how do you reconcile the alleged inability of the GNC engineers to come up with a usable solution with your new claim that you "NEVER said engineering was not up to the task"?
Why would you make an assumption like that? I NEVER said engineering was not up to the task.
And do your high-powered space business friends agree with your claim that Apollo was a fake?
Also, thanks for the information on your undergraduate degree. I'd still love to hear the rest of your story, as outlined in reply #66 (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10641#msg10641). You've added Huntington Beach to your resume, and that you did "some work" for MacDac there... what did you do?
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government.
Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?
Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"
I know where they weren't.
Obviously I meant to say Buzz Lightyear.So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.Buzz Armstrong? No such astronaut. You can't even get the basic information about Apollo 11 right. Sad.
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.
That would make you a liar. And a hypocrite.
The proposed trajectories of the LM and CSM had been planned in advance, while the Patriots had to track the Scuds in real time.The crucial difference is that Apollo lunar orbit rendezvous is cooperative while Patriot/Scud interception is exactly the opposite. Everyone from the designers of the two Apollo spacecraft, the teams of engineers assisting from the ground, and especially their highly trained crews very much wanted a successful rendezvous. The Scuds' Iraqi operators very much wanted to avoid successful Patriot intercepts.
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.) There are also martian rocks on earth. Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.) Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.Zap pits.
"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets. That was 1991.As a super duper engineer surely you understand that these are not comparable scenarios, and why, no?
"...in the first Bush Gulf War, when the probability of a Patriot missile (cost: $1 to $6 million) actually taking out a Scud missile (cost: $0.22 to $1 million) was only 9 percent."
http://corporategreedchronicles.com/2011/11/25/like-the-patriot-act-there-is-nothing-patriotic-about-the-raytheon-patriot-missile/
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.) There are also martian rocks on earth. Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.) Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.
"...the current most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked. It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion.Which is it Alex? Something landed and took off or didn't. Make your mind up.
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)No they don't. The Soviets have Moon DUST. The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams. The first sample return mission, Luna 16, took off in September 1970, a full year after Apollo 11 returned its samples.
what about the insults towards me? But, I can always sign on as somebody else.Oh, and stop play-acting like a whiney little brat that's wandered into the playground and got a slap for talking smack with the bigger boys. Your very first post contained a slur against the members here. Act your physical age, not your mental age FFS (or indeed your IQ number).
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.
The government lies all the time.
The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion.
Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
The moon landing is a belief system.
The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams.Um, 326 grams.
The Luna missions returned 32.6 grams.Um, 326 grams.
Still less than one-thousandth of what the six Apollo missions brought back...
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.) There are also martian rocks on earth.
Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions (which means if the Apollo moon rocks actually came from the moon, it does not prove we put a man on the moon.)
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.
So FORGET your moon rock theory.
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets. That was 1991.
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
I'd want those numbers substantiated. Prove that the risks involved in flying to the Moon are too high to justify actually trying it for real, then prove that the risks of being caught faking it at any time in the future by emerging or as-yet uninvented technologies are sufficiently low to make that a better option.
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
I'd want those numbers substantiated. Prove that the risks involved in flying to the Moon are too high to justify actually trying it for real, then prove that the risks of being caught faking it at any time in the future by emerging or as-yet uninvented technologies are sufficiently low to make that a better option.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them?
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)
Scientists also say the moon was knocked off as a chunk of the earth, which means moon rocks are made of the same material as earth rocks.
So FORGET your moon rock theory. It's forever solidly debunked.
It does not prove anyone, even Buzz Armstrong, ever set foot on the moon.
As far as the LEM having a rendezvous radar, the radar-guided Patriot missile during the Gulf War missed 9 out of 10 targets. That was 1991.
Troll.Oh yeah... well, I'm rubber and you're glue...
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.
If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
what about the insults towards me?
But, I can always sign on as somebody else.
There are moon rocks on earth, especially in Antarctica (because they are easier to see.)
There are also martian rocks on earth. Russia has moon rocks they brought back from unmanned missions
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
What a sad, pathetic thing to say. If this really is the way you live in the world, I actually pity you.
Let me guess... you believe in the tooth fairy, don't you? You are very gullible and very naive. I pity you. You are a sheep. Yet, I must protect you from the New World Order. I must force you sheeple to wake up. It's for your own good. Evil awaits you unless you follow me.
QuoteLook people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50.
That number comes from one offhand estimate from one person during Apollo 11, reported in retrospect. It's not the product of computation or statistics. No one really was able to determine the probability of success for Apollo 11, nor did it really matter because there was always another Apollo mission to try.
. . . (and by the way, do you know what being hoisted by your own petard means?)
If I had a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT, it wouldn't make me right or wrong.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government. Why do people believe them? The moon landing is a belief system. It's a religion.
I can't prove Jesus didn't come to America, but millions of Mormons believe it. I could show them all kinds of equations, and it wouldn't change their minds.
Governments lie, and history is on my side in that regard.
Well, if I were Mr. President, I would respond, "But faking it means that we will also have to create a perfect hoax. How are we going to create hours of video footage of a wide area with low gravity and no atmosphere? How are we going to ensure that no one notices from radio transmissions that things are not what they seem? How will we prevent other countries from finding out after the fact, and leaving us with egg on our faces? Our chances of success are NOT 100% with a hoax, they're much less than 50/50. So, let's go with the real deal. It'll be cheaper and easier."
Your problem, alexsanchez, is that you assume that creating the hoax is easy. It's not. It would be more difficult, in fact, to fake the landings than to actually do them.
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
Look people, NASA goes to the president and says, if we try to go to the moon, the chances of success are 50/50. If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
If I were President and these were the options given to me, I'd tell the person suggesting that we fake it to clear out his desk and never come back. The goal is to be first in space, not to pretend to be. If 50/50 is the best odds they can give me, then I tell them to bust their butts to increase those odds. And if in the end we fail, we can at least hold our heads high for having tried our best. There is no shame in making an honest effort and coming up short. Faking it is for wimps and cowards.
Alex, perhaps the reason you find it so easy to believe NASA are liars and cheats is because those traits come so naturally to you.
2) To jumpstart the American scientific and technical economy; to inspire a new generation of scientists and engineers, to rebuild faltering industries -- to step back into the forefront of science and technology of the world and rebuild the infrastructure educational and manufacturing.
(Which also maintains the technological edge of the military).
And it succeeded in both.
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...
My appreciation for grim technicalities approves this.there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...
there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...
One of my favourite aviation sayings...there was only a 3 in 4 chance any test pilot during that era would live to the end of his career.Actually, every test pilot lived to the end of his career. It's just that some didn't live past it...
The way I heard it first was about mushroom pickers.Wouldn't that have been at 255 since you started at 0?
The principle still applies.
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
For that you must define the theoretical null poster.The way I heard it first was about mushroom pickers.Wouldn't that have been at 255 since you started at 0?
The principle still applies.
EDIT: Hey, cool , 256 posts! I'm 8-bit! ;D
Dang, you are both right.No they are both wrong as there does not exist anyones 0th post. LOL
And now I just made it worse. :'(
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.
- - snip for space - -
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.
- - snip for space - -
Well said. But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
A 0th post does not exist but one can have 0 posts.Dang, you are both right.No they are both wrong as there does not exist anyones 0th post. LOL
And now I just made it worse. :'(
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.
- - snip for space - -
Well said. But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Back on topic, as an engineer, I can see myself saying:
"What? I'm wrong?, I made a mistake? Quick, show me where."
And I have.
I cannot imagine ever saying:
"No I cannot be wrong, therefore you must be wrong"
This alone puts our current protagonists claim to expertise in the trash.
No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.
- - snip for space - -
Well said. But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
Don't discourage him. I enjoy what he writes.No, that argument is based on pure fantasy.
- - snip for space - -
Well said. But don't you get tired of repeating yourself?
* Previous line should be read with an admiring nod and a wry smile.
QuoteBack on topic, as an engineer, I can see myself saying:
"What? I'm wrong?, I made a mistake? Quick, show me where."
And I have.
I cannot imagine ever saying:
"No I cannot be wrong, therefore you must be wrong"
This alone puts our current protagonists claim to expertise in the trash.
ITA. Someone here has a sig with an Asimov quote, something about the best results from an experiment coming when the scientist says "That's funny...". Results that differ from our expectations are almost always the beginning of a new understanding.
I expect Jay has a bazillion text files of rebuffs, facts and statistics meticulously indexed to call up when required.
Yes, genius, I have another stupid argument for you. 6 times they found nothing interesting? But they kept going back to the lunar equator? Now that's stupid. Why didn't they go to the north pole? They would have found tons of water and people would have been thrilled to death. But, no... all they did was bring back moon rocks, and more moon rocks. They might have found some kind of life in that water. But noooo... lets go to the equator again, and, duhhhh... we'll bring back some more moon rocks.
If we fake it, the chances of success are 100% and nobody will ever suspect us. What do you want to do Mr. President?
Furthermore, all the Apollo mission where initially launched on free return trajectories.
Finally, consider that as the LM is on the surface of the Moon, the Moon is rotating. This causes the landing site to move in relation to the orbital plane of the CSM. Before the LM can launch and perform a rendezvous, the CSM must perform a plane change to bring the landing site back into the plane of the orbit. If the CSM is in a low inclination orbit with the landing site near the equator, the movement of the landing site is mostly within the plane of the orbit, with only a small amount of movement outside (perpendicular to) the plane of the orbit. This means that the CSM has to make only a small plane change. On the other hand, if the CSM is in a high inclination orbit with the landing site near a pole, as the Moon rotates the landing site moves mostly out of the plane of the orbit. This means that after several days on the Moon, the CSM must perform a very large plane change to bring the landing site back into the orbital plane. Anyone familiar with orbital mechanics knows that large plane changes are very costly in terms of delta-v, hence propellant. The Apollo CSM simply didn’t have the capacity to perform such a maneuver.
In summary, Apollo was limited by the amount of propellant it could carry to landing sites in the equatorial region.
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.
In those days I didn't question the moon landings. We didn't have the internet, for one thing. I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth. We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980. (I used to have a piece of core memory I ripped out of a smashed guidance computer that was sitting on a shelf. It had been fished out of the ocean after a failed launch. The computer was made by Delco in Goleta, Calif.)My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.
And?
As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.
But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.
If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?
If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment. BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA. I got a $2k bonus for it.My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.
And?
As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.
But even if we suppose you are telling the truth, you now claim to have worked for or with people from three of the major contractors for the Apollo program. Do these people agree with your assertion that the engineering of Apollo was not up to the task of landing on the Moon and returning safely to Earth? And yes, that is what you are claiming.
If they do, why aren't they supporting you? If they don't, why do you disagree with these smart people?
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?1) Easy exchange of information and ideas.
My boss at McDonnell Douglas was Henry Dhuyvetter.
And?
As we have already said, naming people you have supposedly worked with does not support your credentials as an engineer. We don't care who you worked for, we care about what you did.
But even if we suppose...
Who's we? Do you all live in the same house? Do you all share the same brain?
What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?1) Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2) Youtube.
3) Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views. What do you talk about when I'm not here? How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring. Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????Who's we? Do you all live in the same house? Do you all share the same brain?
Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one. It's not perspective, it's parallax. There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views. What do you talk about when I'm not here?
How much you all have the exact same point of view?
Sounds pretty boring. Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one. It's not perspective, it's parallax. There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain
Don't confuse reality with opinion. There's a BIG difference. And I suggest you read about perspective. Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM. In a real debate, you lost 1 point. Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide. What flavor is that, btw? Lemmie guess.. TANG?Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views. What do you talk about when I'm not here?
Reality.QuoteHow much you all have the exact same point of view?
That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?QuoteSounds pretty boring. Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
I recommend you read about "parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)", Mr. Engineer.
Excellent question!!! They are from the NASA website. Sequential: AS15-86-11601 and AS15-86-11602.Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one. It's not perspective, it's parallax. There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain
Why don't you show us the original source of the images or video that that animated GIF was made from. It might explain some things.
BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA. I got a $2k bonus for it.
Don't confuse reality with opinion.
And I suggest you read about perspective.
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.
Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide. What flavor is that, btw? Lemmie guess.. TANG?
Who said I'm using my real name? Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre. My real name comes up on patentgenius. If I google Jay Utah will I find you?BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA. I got a $2k bonus for it.
False. Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight. Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.
http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/7467065.html
False. Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight. Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.
From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.
Analysis done by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D, Department of Physics and Technology, Kharkov State University, Ukraine
Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.Don't confuse reality with opinion.
Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.QuoteAnd I suggest you read about perspective.
Well, let me see. Since it's my profession, I know a lot about it. And my personal skill at and knowledge of photographic interpretation and analysis has been published in Science. You may have heard about it; it's only the most prestigious professional scientific journal in the English language.
Where did you receive your training? Do you just realize that you demonstrated total ignorance of one of the most basic principles in the projective transformation?QuoteDuly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.
Begging the question.QuoteBetter take another sip of your NASA cool-aide. What flavor is that, btw? Lemmie guess.. TANG?
This is why you get banned.
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible. It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published. After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later. What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.
Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.
Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views. What do you talk about when I'm not here? How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring. Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????No one, its right where it should be, the astronaut has just moved a few hundred yards away from it. The mountains are just much further away than they look due to there being no air to produce fuzzyness or vegetation to provide cues as to the scale making judging distances on the Moon very difficult compared to earth. Try looking up maps of the landing sites to see just how far away features are before assuming that they are a faked backdrop.
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
That's not my patent. My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)False. Yes, there is a software algorithm patented under the name "Alex Sanchez" (the only such patent in the U.S. Patent Database as inventor or assignee), and it has nothing to do with engineering or space flight. Nor does it require any engineering knowledge, simple I/O programming.
From a brief glance over http://www.google.com/patents?id=IzGxAAAAEBAJ, it's not actually a software patent, it's a simple interface converter with some storage functionality added in. But yeah, the software involved would be pretty trivial, and not likely to involve any novel algorithms.
Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
I simply asked who moved the LM. You said to look up parallax. You avoided the question.
I simply asked who moved the LM.
BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.
That's not my patent. My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)
Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible. It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published. After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.
What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.
Don't confuse intuition with knowledge.
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
I simply asked who moved the LM. You said to look up parallax. You avoided the question.
I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.
Sorry. I saw the name as quoted. Your name is quoted above it. Anyway, how many engineers do you know? Your expectations are a little high.
So, if I google Lunar Orbit, will I find you? (or whoever questioned my patent.)
I'm not on my regular computer right now, but if I was, I'd overlay one on the other. However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames. This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible. It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published. After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later.
If you're photographing fashion models you might move set pieces around and pick the best shots later. If you're trying to fool the world into believing that you're on the moon you want to keep the set the same between shots to avoid continuity errors that will attract close attention.QuoteWhat seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.
And that is parallax. The mountains are really big and far away, so they don't appear to move much. The LM is smaller and closer to the camera, so when the photographer moves the mountains look the same but the LM appears to be in a different location.
What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.
However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames. This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved. I'm saying the LM has moved a large distance while the camera position is the same (or almost the same.) The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames. This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.
Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer. You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.
The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation. I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.
Nope. Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds. Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.QuoteThe large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation. It is strictly a product of camera location. If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis. What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one. It's not perspective, it's parallax. There's a clear and abrupt demarcation between the foreground and the background where there shouldn't be.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
And what is that supposed to prove other than the late Jack White didn't understand perspective?
Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step and quickly taken. - Mark Twain
Don't confuse reality with opinion. There's a BIG difference. And I suggest you read about perspective. Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM. In a real debate, you lost 1 point. Better take another sip of your NASA cool-aide. What flavor is that, btw? Lemmie guess.. TANG?Comments like that aren't going to get you taken off the moderation list any faster.Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views. What do you talk about when I'm not here?
Reality.QuoteHow much you all have the exact same point of view?
That's the funny thing about "reality"... people tend to agree about it when they're rational. You don't see a lot of rational people disagreeing about what 2+2 equals, do you?QuoteSounds pretty boring. Hey... who moved the LM in this picture?????
http://goo.gl/UPBJU
I recommend you read about "parallax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax)", Mr. Engineer.
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation. I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.
Nope. Originally you said your reason for believing the camera had not moved was the identical backgrounds. Now you're changing your story based on feedback you've received.QuoteThe large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.
Parallax has nothing to do with camera orientation. It is strictly a product of camera location. If there was previously any doubt whether you understood parallax, your claim to determine "using parallax" a different in camera orientation removed it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Yes, we know you're just cribbing all these claims from Aulis. What you have to realize is that none of what appears on Aulis is taken seriously by the professional photographic analysis community, and that the Aulis authors have many times refused to face anyone in open debate over their findings.
It sounds plausible, but not necessarily more plausible. It's just as plausible that the people who shot the photos were not the same people that selected what got published. After all, during a photo shoot, you move things around and pick out the best shots later. What seems incontestable (to me) is that the camera is at the exact same vantage point by virtue of the background mountains, yet the LM is clearly in two different places.Duly noted that you avoided the question regarding who moved the LM.
Huh? I didn't think you we're actually serious. No one moved the LM, it was the astronauts that moved.
Let me ask you something, Alex. If NASA faked the moon landings on a film set why would a large prop like the LM ever be moved around between shots? Don't your think the crews would be aware of the continuity problems that would create? Seriously... Does that really seem like a more plausible explanation than parallax?
In this case the parallax effect can be ignored due to a negligible small angle in orientation. I'm saying parallax does not apply to explain the photos.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved. I'm saying the LM has moved a large distance while the camera position is the same (or almost the same.) The large dark hole in the left foreground, using parallax, indicates that the camera is pointed maybe half a degree off between the two.However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames. This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.
Parallax is exactly such a mismatch between foreground and background due to the displacement of the photographer. You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
This picture shows a clear demarcation between foreground and background.
http://aulis.com/stereoparallax/appolo_15_S1.gif
I'm the one who questioned your patent, since you seem to have great difficulty keeping up.I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.
Please post the patent number.
BTW, I worked at Boeing for 12 years doing image processing on such things as the U2 and other aerial photography.
Well, he knew a fake background when he saw one.
I'm not on my regular computer right now, but if I was, I'd overlay one on the other. However, in the left foreground, there is what appears to be a big dark hole in the lunar surface, which makes it look as though the camera is in the same position in both frames. This would mean it's not an issue of parallax.
....snip...
Alex, instead of shallowly jumping around from topic to topic, why don't you - just as a REAL engineer would - nominate the best, most absolutely convincing and compelling proof that you have. That would be the..
..best evidenced one, in your opinion.
..best documented one, in your opinion (whether that be by NASA or by some denial website).
..the one that you feel most confident you can support with your particular skill set...
And then, be prepared to go through that single issue in a thorough, step by step, logical, cited and referenced fashion (just as an engineer .. or scientist - or indeed any competent investigator - would). That process would of course include properly applicable formulas and mathematics as/when/if required.... snip...
Why even a bit of photogrammetry, if such was appropriate.. 8)
Different viewpoint (aligned on the hill under 'E', exactly the same size selection area).
(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/71/auliscrap1.jpg)
Next.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying the foreground and background are the same, therefore the camera hasn't moved.No you don't
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work. They look reasonable at a glance.
If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.
If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down. However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.
I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it..Well then, effectively you don't have a patent, as far as this forum is concerned. Don't claim it if you can't back it up.
and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.That's an extra hint to your trolling, is it?
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.Then WHY in the name of all that is even vaguely sensible, did you bring that excrement here? That entire site is garbage, and even those with a cursory engineering background, let alone those with other specialist skills like photography (many of whom reside here) - can see that. But not you...
They look reasonable at a glance.How bloody ridiculous. So you admit your research was 'a glance'? Gee, it doesn't show at all {/sarcasm}
If I get a chance to do my own analysisGolly, do you think maybe you should have done that BEFORE making these unbelievably ignorant proclamations?
.. and they don't hold up, I'll say so.Well, you haven't said so, so far. I guess we need to give you some latitude while your posts are checked by a grown up.. but frankly, if you don't get back soon and start saying so, I think it is safe to assume that you haven't got a single clue.
I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photosSo, you've been researching this sort of stuff, but didn't have a basic image editor? It justs gets worse, if that's possible. Learn as you go, huh?
but it hung up this macbook I'm using.Oh, what a terrible shame. It *is* so difficult to download and install software, isn't it. perhaps you should seek some professional help from people who know what they are doing.. perhaps you could apply this principle to a wider extent, also..
I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.Well, that's the closest to being right you have managed.. Pretty much all of it doesn't hold up. If you had any knowledge of photography and the basics of perspective, parallax and photogrammetry, you would have been able to spot that AT A GLANCE... (See what i did there?)
If somebody can do an overlay of these two photosMany here can, including me..
(which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car)Oh you poor darling. There there, never mind. Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?
then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.Oh look - an escape clause!! What a surprise - gee, who didn't see that bit of Gish Galloping coming... Anyway, others seem to have already done some overlays for you - I'd prefer not to waste my time until you commit to your very best piece of 'evidence'.
it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASASo WHICH ONE IS THAT BOGUS PHOTO, ALEX?
although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.The burden of proof is YOURS, Alex. History records we went. You say we didn't, so show the BEST EVIDENCE YOU HAVE. Go on, be BRAVE - COMMIT. Your game is up - no more changing the subject, no more stolen laptops, no more galloping, no more escape clauses for every claim so you can simply jump from one bit of stupidity to the next.
I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth. We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980.
If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.
BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA. I got a $2k bonus for it.
Who's we? Do you all live in the same house? Do you all share the same brain?
Good!!! You're the ones being denied alternative views.
What do you talk about when I'm not here?
How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.
Don't confuse reality with opinion. There's a BIG difference.
Who said I'm using my real name? Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre.
That's not my patent. My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)
I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.
However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.
Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.
Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.
I would suggest they didn't care about whether it was an accurate claim, because they assume that their target audience is so gullible that they won't check either.
It's an even more laughable argument than the 'no stars' hogwash - easily disprovable unless you are absolutely determined not to want to try.
That's interesting. Here's some of the reasons I think the Apollo landings actually happened.What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?1) Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2) Youtube.
3) Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4) Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN
I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.
The government lies all the time. NASA is the government.
Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?
Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"
I know where they weren't.
My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
Just like he put on his wellies and mackintosh when told it was sunny, I shouldn't wonder. ::)My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from. I never believed them after that.
What did you do when mom told you dinner was ready? Go hungry?
I don't want to post the patent number because...
...my real name is on it
...I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.
Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.
They look reasonable at a glance.
If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.
I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos...
However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.
Okay, let's assume that one photo is actually found to be faked. No one has shown it yet, but let that go and let's play pretend. One photo, out of the thousands, is not only a fake but an obvious fake. One that even someone as ignorant as Jack White would be able to legitimately show is fake. Okay, we'll pretend that for the moment.
So what?
What you have done is falsify a single photo. The fact that it's fake gives you a reason to reinvestigate a lot of other things, including and especially all the other photos on that roll, but you have not proven that anything else is fake just by showing that a single photo is. You still have to answer for all the other evidence. You have to explain the other facts--and there are a lot of them. You can't just say, "Well, that one photo is fake, so of course everything else is fake." Because if a single piece of evidence, no matter what it is, cannot be shown to have been faked, well, that single piece of evidence is from an authentic trip to the Moon. The more pieces of evidence that cannot be faked (and I can name plenty just off the top of my head despite not being an expert), the less any single faked piece of evidence means.
And remember, no one has shown a photograph was faked. So far, all the "smoking guns" have instead been misunderstandings, and usually obvious ones, on the part of the people making hoax claims. Most of the major hoax arguments have incredibly simple responses, many of which don't even require understanding much about science. Certainly not more than you can pick up by just walking outside and looking at the world around you.
I'm trying to coin a new phrase, something about a recursive bundle of straw.
Every Hoax Believer I've run into starts with one argument, but it is always presented in the context, "Plus all the other evidence." When they switch to a different argument, it is still presented as, "Among the other evidence."
Even if you manage to follow their Gish Gallop all the way around the track back to the starting gate, only the specific argument of the moment is ever open to question. All the others retreat to a Schrodinger-esque "Have not been proven or disproven." No matter how thoroughly you exhaust their stack of arguments, they will always hold on to, "All the other stuff we were discussing."
Alexsanchez,The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position. If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake. I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything. It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it. So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise. Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon. No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding. Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material. Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?
Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.
Thanks in advance.
alexsanchez, I understand why you would not want your name on the internet. It's good online safety.I gave my real name and a link to a patent of mine up thread. Am I scared? Nope.
However, you must understand that we know that humans lie. So, if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.
On the other hand, Apollo is confirmed with multiple forms of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. It's much more believable than one unidentified person saying he has a patent somewhere.
...It's a fallacy to think of it as a chain, 'only as strong as its weakest link'. The defense often tries to take that approach, arguing that if any piece of evidence fails, the entire chain fails.The term Michael Shermer has used is 'convergence of evidence'.
Bugliosi pointed out that it is, rather, a rope. Each item of evidence is like a strand in that rope, adding to its strength. Even if one item fails - say, for example, DNA is thrown out on a technicality, the other strands still hold.
Even if doubt could be introduced about the photographic record, there are still hundreds of kilograms of rocks and soil that the international scientific community agree are genuine. And so on and so forth. Even if a person has what they believe to be legitimate doubts about some aspect of the record, there is just so much other evidence that the case is overwhelmingly convincing.So let's summarise the evidence relating to the Apollo rocks.
...It's a fallacy to think of it as a chain, 'only as strong as its weakest link'. The defense often tries to take that approach, arguing that if any piece of evidence fails, the entire chain fails.The term Michael Shermer has used is 'convergence of evidence'.
Bugliosi pointed out that it is, rather, a rope. Each item of evidence is like a strand in that rope, adding to its strength. Even if one item fails - say, for example, DNA is thrown out on a technicality, the other strands still hold.QuoteEven if doubt could be introduced about the photographic record, there are still hundreds of kilograms of rocks and soil that the international scientific community agree are genuine. And so on and so forth. Even if a person has what they believe to be legitimate doubts about some aspect of the record, there is just so much other evidence that the case is overwhelmingly convincing.So let's summarise the evidence relating to the Apollo rocks.
1. The Apollo rocks total about 380 kilograms. That's more than 1000 times the material brought back by three unmanned Soviet sample retrieval missions.
2. The Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, in the absence of water. Geologically they're very obviously not from the Earth.
3. The Apollo rocks definitely aren't lunar meteorites as, unlike the lunar meteorites, they show no sign of having passed through the Earth's atmosphere at high speed, or of being contaminated by terrestrial factors like water. Instead, they show signs of alterations by impact by micrometeorites ('zap pits') and by solar radiation. Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not collected in Antarctica. The fact that the origin of lunar meteorites was determined by comparing them with Apollo rocks is one little piece of irony.
4. The Apollo rocks definitely weren't collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. As pointed out above, the total weight of Apollo rocks is more than 1000 times that collected by three Soviet unmanned sample retriever missions. The Apollo rocks were often photographed on the ground prior to collection, and the photos often include astronauts. How then were the photos taken? If they were taken on the Moon by hypothetical sample retriever spacecraft, how did the astronauts get in the photos? But if they were taken on the Earth at a secret fake Moon set, what material was used to make the set? If lunar material, how much more "stuff" needed to be brought back to the Earth to dress the set? And if terrestrial material, how did it not contaminate the genuine samples? Therefore the Apollo rocks were very obviously not brought back to the Earth by unmanned sample retriever missions. In any case, the idea that unmanned spacecraft could safely land on the Moon when guidance problems prevented manned spacecraft from doing exactly the same thing is a second piece of irony.
5. The current consensus on the formation of the Moon was built on more than a decade's study of the Apollo rocks. The idea that the current consensus demonstrates the Apollo rocks are fake in some way when they were actually the foundation of the theory is a third piece of irony.
Three pieces of irony in a single subject? Either you know nothing about the lunar rocks, or you're trying to look ignorant.
That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation. The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.NASA didn't attempt a Moon landing with an untested LM. An unmanned LM was tested during Apollo 5. Manned LMs were tested in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. Only after these successes did they actually try landing a LM on the Moon. Shouldn't someone who has done even basic research on the Apollo program know this?
Because geologists are stupid and gullible and the word of the government is the only thing they have to go on?Alexsanchez,The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position. If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake. I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything. It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it. So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?
Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.
Thanks in advance.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon. No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding. Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material. Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.Again, geologists are not as stupid as you think they are. There is no evidence that "reconditioning" can even be done let alone be convincing. Genuine Moon rocks show many characteristics that other rocks or rocks from Antarctica simply don't. As for the "lose their funding" nonsense, that is a lame copout that doesn't even begin to explain why geologists in other countries around the world including those hostile to the US at the time would go along with it.
I cast doubt on the lunar ascent for several reasons. One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)Nor should there be. A craft that is designed to operate solely in a vacuum should be tested solely in a vacuum. Good thing it was.
They could have used a helium balloon to simulate 1/6 gravity.Or jet engines like they did on the trainer? That craft would be good for training but not for the actual article. Good thing again that they tested it in space.
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV. And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.At least you got that part right. Too bad you didn't know they had hundred of successful flights besides that.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.Good thing they tested it then. Haven't you researched this at all?
I guess you could say the ascent was mathematically possible,Nobody that actually understands it would say that.
but there are some grave problems with navigation to overcome.Only in your mind and you haven't proven it.
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing, and the fact that the moon had never been surveyed (no one had been there to do one) meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates. That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation. The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye. That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet. Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate. They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff. No theodolite bearing. How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing? A Kalman filter takes time to settle out. While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros. You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit. You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous. Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates. They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS.This has already been answered. Ignoring the answers doesn't make you look good.
None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.Only in your mind.
But there's no way for anyone to prove anything. The retro-reflectors don't prove anything. You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD. You can slant an experiment to show anything you want. Everything is hearsay. NASA controls all of the information. The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real, and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success. No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.Lots of opinion on your part, no proof and pretty much everything wrong.
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.You mean Jack White had no idea what he was talking about? What a shocker!
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake. I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything. It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it. So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding. Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material. Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
I cast doubt on the lunar ascent for several reasons.
One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.) They could have used a helium balloon to simulate 1/6 gravity. The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV. And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM. I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times. I guess you could say the ascent was mathematically possible, but there are some grave problems with navigation to overcome. First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing, and the fact that the moon had never been surveyed (no one had been there to do one) meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates. That leaves radar and optics (star finder) for navigation. The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye. That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet. Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate. They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff. No theodolite bearing. How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing? A Kalman filter takes time to settle out. While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros. You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit. You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors. The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous. Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates. They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS.
None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood. But there's no way for anyone to prove anything. The retro-reflectors don't prove anything. You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD. You can slant an experiment to show anything you want. Everything is hearsay. NASA controls all of the information. The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real, and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success. No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
Why not look at the evidence?Alexsanchez,The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?
Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.
Thanks in advance.
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.
So maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.How do you "recondition" a rock?
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.There's a lot of wrong in that statement.
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
alexsanchez, I understand why you would not want your name on the internet. It's good online safety.Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous. Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever.
However, you must understand that we know that humans lie. So, if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.
On the other hand, Apollo is confirmed with multiple forms of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. It's much more believable than one unidentified person saying he has a patent somewhere.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM, let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.NASA didn't attempt a Moon landing with an untested LM. An unmanned LM was tested during Apollo 5. Manned LMs were tested in Earth orbit on Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. Only after these successes did they actually try landing a LM on the Moon. Shouldn't someone who has done even basic research on the Apollo program know this?
Also the LM did not work flawlessly. If it did, the Eagle wouldn't have had those program alarms during its descent.
You're probably right on all points. Thanks.Why not look at the evidence?Alexsanchez,The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Can you stick to one point rather than a gish-gallop of stuff please?
Can you please reply to the points that I raised in this post?
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=348.msg10717#msg10717
Specifically
Please explain the difference in sample return quantities between the American and Russian Lunar missions,
Where and when were the alleged USA robotic sample return missions?
If the US samples where returned robotically, then why do you insist that a Lunar ascent is impossible without accurate co-ords?
Why did the US have 380Kg of Lunar rocks if they were all sourced from the Polar regions? Why does other sovereign states that have polar territories not have similar amounts?
Please explain the difference between moon-derived meteorites and the Apollo samples.
Please detail your qualifications that allows you to comment on the study of Lunar rocks.
Thanks in advance.QuoteIf I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.QuoteI also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?QuoteIt's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.
Likewise, American spy satellites provided information about the N-1 rocket which the Soviets "forgot" to publicise.
But there's other evidence which allows us to be sure the Soviets did make certain achievements in space - for example the British interception of signal from spacecraft at the Moon.QuoteSo maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.QuoteMoon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.How do you "recondition" a rock?
The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.
The Apollo rocks contain evidence of having been subject to solar radiation for anywhere between millions and billions of years. Please describe the process for faking this?QuoteNo university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.QuoteAlso, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.There's a lot of wrong in that statement.
1. "Debris", not "chunk". The Moon was formed by the accretion of lots of small pieces of material blasted off the Earth by the impact.
2. The impact would have generated high temperatures, which would vaporise volatile materials. This explains why the Moon is deficient in volatile materials like water, and thus in turn why the rocks on the Moon are different from those of the Earth.
May I suggest you read a little more about the topic.QuoteScientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
Yes, they would if it's the best explanation of the evidence. The theory also fits in well with the conditions of the early Solar System - a lot more planets and planetesimals than we have today. What do you think is likely to happen in such a chaotic environment?
I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate.Why didn't you do basic research on the LM (like how many missions it flew) before you started to "debate"?
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous. Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.
I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate.
Moon rocks that came back from the moon? NASA said it and I believe it.The lad doth project too much, methinks.
Well, hoax claims are not my profession. I'm not getting paid. Skepticism is what I do in my spare time. And writers often use a pen name. Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous. Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.
You want to remain anonymous and run away from the professional responsibility for your hoax claims while wanting to publish the same thing in a magazine? The contradictions never stop.
What's the opposite of trolling? Not trolling? What's the opposite of collecting stamps? Not collecting stamps? The title of this forum section says:I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate.
In other words, you are trolling.
What's the opposite of trolling? Not trolling? What's the opposite of collecting stamps? Not collecting stamps? The title of this forum section says:I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate.
In other words, you are trolling.
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them.
Sounds like an invitation to me.
I'm trying to imagine a LM trainer swinging from its balloon tether every time its RCS fires.You're right. It would be hard to test it. Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.
Well, hoax claims are not my profession. I'm not getting paid. Skepticism is what I do in my spare time. And writers often use a pen name. Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.Yes, these days it's good to be anonymous. Anything you say can and will be used against you, and the internet is forever....However, I'm actually thinking right this minute of having an article published in a magazine since I'm doing all this writing.
You want to remain anonymous and run away from the professional responsibility for your hoax claims while wanting to publish the same thing in a magazine? The contradictions never stop.
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.
If I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you.
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
I also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.
It's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
No university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.
Also, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.
Scientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
One being is that there is no record of the LM being tested for ascent or descent on earth (that I know of.)
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV. And, regardless, the LLTV was not a LM.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM...
...let alone have it work flawlessly 6 times.
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing...
...meaning there could be no IMU update to moon coordinates.
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate.
How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?
A Kalman filter takes time to settle out.
While sitting on the moon, the moon is rotating, and that rotation is is being fed into the gyros.
You can't just land on the moon and take off 2.5 hours later and get into a perfect orbit.
You could argue that they used dead reckoning and mid-course corrections in flight and flew to the dark side of the moon and used the star finder, but that's just smoke and mirrors.
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.
Note that before every space shuttle mission (and every rocket launch) a very careful IMU alignment was done to earth coordinates.
They don't just rely on radar to get to the ISS.
None of this is definitive proof against a lunar ascent, but it explains the unlikelihood.
But there's no way for anyone to prove anything.
Everything is hearsay.
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real...
...and faking guaranteed 100% success, including faking Apollo 13 to make it look like everything wasn't a success.
No one can deny the govt had the means and the motive to fake it.
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
I'm trying to imagine a LM trainer swinging from its balloon tether every time its RCS fires.You're right. It would be hard to test it.
Well, hoax claims are not my profession.
I'm not getting paid.
And writers often use a pen name. Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
Except for the part about not having any theory and backing away from your disjointed claims.What's the opposite of trolling? Not trolling? What's the opposite of collecting stamps? Not collecting stamps? The title of this forum section says:I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate.
In other words, you are trolling.
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked? Share your theories here, but be prepared to defend them.
Sounds like an invitation to me.
Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.
Skepticism is what I do in my spare time. And writers often use a pen name. Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
And writers often use a pen name. Take Mark Twain... Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
Although they wouldn't need RCS with a helium balloon.
Then what's the point of the test?
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments.
My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.
The article would not be about proving anything, rather what it's like to argue with a group of people who are all of like mind, and taking the opposing view.
I think my main point here is to show people that the moon-landings are like a religion. It's faith.
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.
I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate.
Now that I've had time to think about it...You're probably right on all points. Thanks.Why not look at the evidence?Alexsanchez,The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate. By that I mean I could just as well take either position.
Thanks in advance.QuoteIf I accept the govt's assertion that the moon landings were real, I would use the same arguments as you. However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.Ri-i-ight. So we're starting with an assertion.QuoteI also assert that the Soviet Union lied about bringing back their moon rocks and that they only had rocks from Antarctica, or Siberia, if anything.Assertion number two. You have no evidence for this?QuoteIt's safe to say the Russians were adept at political propaganda and would not have hesitated to lie about it.Accepted. We know the Soviets lied about certain aspects of their space missions. But this knowledge is based on evidence - for example, photographs altered to remove people subsequently dismissed as cosmonauts. The photos are known to be altered because either two differently altered versions of the photos have been published, or different photographs taken at the same time show different group compositions. Jim Oberg has been writing about this for 20+ years.
Likewise, American spy satellites provided information about the N-1 rocket which the Soviets "forgot" to publicise.
But there's other evidence which allows us to be sure the Soviets did make certain achievements in space - for example the British interception of signal from spacecraft at the Moon.QuoteSo maybe there are no rocks that were brought back from the moon. But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.Sorry, but that's wrong. As I mentioned above (posted before I saw your post), Moon rocks are identifiably different from Earth rocks. They show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. You simply can't fake that on Earth. A geologist might have valid reasons for asking whether the rock came from the Moon, but (s)he certainly would know it can't have come from the Earth.QuoteMoon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.How do you "recondition" a rock?
The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.
The Apollo rocks contain evidence of having been subject to solar radiation for anywhere between millions and billions of years. Please describe the process for faking this?QuoteNo university researcher would cast doubt on the moon rocks as that would make them lose their funding.Upsetting the status quo is what makes scientists famous. Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein didn't become household names (more or less) by tamely agreeing with what everyone had said before them.QuoteAlso, the leading scientific theory is that the moon is just a chunk of the earth that was blasted off a few billion years ago, so the composition of the moon rocks would be the same as earthly material.There's a lot of wrong in that statement.
1. "Debris", not "chunk". The Moon was formed by the accretion of lots of small pieces of material blasted off the Earth by the impact.
2. The impact would have generated high temperatures, which would vaporise volatile materials. This explains why the Moon is deficient in volatile materials like water, and thus in turn why the rocks on the Moon are different from those of the Earth.
May I suggest you read a little more about the topic.QuoteScientists would not be backing that theory if the alleged moon rocks were different in composition from rocks found on earth.
Yes, they would if it's the best explanation of the evidence. The theory also fits in well with the conditions of the early Solar System - a lot more planets and planetesimals than we have today. What do you think is likely to happen in such a chaotic environment?
Hey... who moved the LM in this picture? ??? ?http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/miss-liberty-and-manhattan.JPG (http://www.dis.uniroma1.it/~demetres/photos/Dec-26-2000/images/miss-liberty-and-manhattan.JPG)
http://goo.gl/UPBJU (http://goo.gl/UPBJU)
Alex, the difference between you and the estimable Mr. Clemens is that he knew how to write well. He could form sentences worth reading that always said what he meant them to. He also knew enough to know what he didn't know, which you don't appear to.So how much do you really know about movies? Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine. It's explained perfectly here:
To be perfectly honest, I think of myself as "the token layman" around here. This place is swarming with people who work in fields directly relevant to the Apollo missions. We have aerospace engineers, professional photographers, physicists, chemists, and so forth. Heck, even I know enough about movies to know that the Apollo footage is still impossible to fake accurately. If you want to dispute that fact, go ahead and explain how it was done. Exactly. Using brand names where necessary and with exact instructions that could be followed to produce the uninterrupted hours of footage we know came out of Apollo.
What's that? You don't know enough to know how it was done? Than how can you state that faking it was easy? How can you state that faking it was possible?
So how much do you really know about movies? Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine. It's explained perfectly here:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
I'm a layperson too. But you don't have to be an engineering expert to contest such obviously wrong claims as "the LM was untested."What is the obvious part? That it worked? Only if you take NASA's word for it. Is there any video of it being tested in flight? There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
Only if you take NASA's word for it.
Is there any video of it being tested in flight?
There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
So how much do you really know about movies? Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Oh boy, when conspiracy theorists say they didn't test things.Well, I guess, if NASA said so.
It's like when they say every photo was perfect, as it shows a critical lack of research.
"Alex", are you aware of Apollo 5, testing the LM unmanned in orbit? How about Apollo 9, where it was tested manned in Earth orbit? No? What about Apollo 10, testing the whole smash in lunar orbit and had an intentionally short fuelled LM ascent stage so that Snoopy's crew would not get any funny ideas about taking that LM down for the final descent?
Apollo 11 you obviously heard of but seem to be unaware its position as literally the final possible test. As has been asked before, just what in heck was left to test?
Did you miss Jay's request here?Only if you take NASA's word for it.
You keep asserting this is why we disagree with you. Point to anywhere where any poster here has said simply that they believe NASA and take their word for it. If you cannot, stop using this straw man.
Well, I guess, if NASA said so.
Did you miss Jay's request here?
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.) The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad. Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
So how much do you really know about movies? Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Which part?
Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?
Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?
Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).
Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?
Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.) The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad. Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.Oh goody, more unsupported assertion. ::)
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.
What is the obvious part? That it worked? Only if you take NASA's word for it. Is there any video of it being tested in flight? There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.Well, I guess, if NASA said so.
Straw man. Why can't you speak in any detail about LM testing? Why do you keep resorting to calling everyone gullible sheep?
You're saying the LM wasn't appropriately tested. We want to know from you to what extent you are aware the LM was tested. We also want to know from you what you believe would have constituted a valid LM test, why your test program would be the proper one, and what evidence you can give that the aerospace industry would agree with your reasons.
Put up or shut up.
What is the obvious part? That it worked? Only if you take NASA's word for it. Is there any video of it being tested in flight? There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.The LLTV was a flying flight simulator, used to help train the pilots in the kind of flight that the LM would undergo.
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon. Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.You said the LM was "untested." That was a blatant error. It makes me wonder what else you didn't research.
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon.
I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.
NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?Who said the moon rocket was fake? Not me. NASA had lots of experience with rockets icing up. What's so remarkable about them being able to estimate how much ice there would be?
NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.
Who said the moon rocket was fake? Not me.
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)
The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
If they had a real Moon rocket, why not use it to, I don't know, fly to the Moon?And if they had a real LM, why not land on it? After all, if Grumman and subcontractors weren't in on the hoax, they would do their very best to make a working LM. Having them be in on it is such an infeasible containment problem, that even many conspiracy theorists say they weren't.
NASA can give you all sorts of details about Apollo that I doubt anyone would think of if the whole thing was a hoax. For example, NASA can tell you the estimated weight of the ice that formed on the sides of the Saturn V rocket prior to launch. Now, who would have even thought to include that kind of detail in press kits about a fake moon rocket?Who said the moon rocket was fake? Not me. NASA had lots of experience with rockets icing up. What's so remarkable about them being able to estimate how much ice there would be?
NASA can answer any question that we might ask them about Apollo. Hoax believers can only offer you speculation. That is why I asked Alex where the astronauts were on July 20, 1969. If he can't answer that then he hasn't given an alternative to NASA's version of events.
2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection. And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)
Err, no.
There are three sequences which take place in zero G; the Pan Am flight, Bowman's re-entry to the Discovery, and the lobotomy of HAL.
Within the Pan Am flight, the following is shown; a man strapped in his seat, asleep, with one arm moving as if weightless. Two pilots, also strapped in their seats, moving normally. A stewardess in (purportedly) velcro shoes, walking in an unusual fashion but otherwise showing no signs of lower gravity. A trick shot of the same actress moving VERY carefully in a rotating set. And two FX shots of a pen, neither of which is the least convincing in describing a free trajectory or motion about its own center of gravity.
In both other sequences, the actor is suspended from a single-point flying rig; in the famous entry sequence, the camera is looking straight up and Bowman is being lowered towards it. His motions -- such as the complete lack of any movement about any other than a single axis -- reveals the trick. The lobotomy sequence breaks this up by shooting from several different directions, but the actor never propels himself or somersaults or does any of the other motions other astronauts typically perform in zero G. He stays in a single limited orientation throughout the sequence.
I believe I might suggest you watch the film before making further commentary on it.The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad.
So lemme get this straight; your best evidence that the Apollo surface video would be easy to fake is that there is a contemporary movie that does a bad job of faking it?
Are you even listening to yourself here?Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
You got one thing right; Kubrick knew better, and made choices for drama and story-telling.
You are wrong otherwise. Every space scene is flawed. The lack of any real zero-G and the failure of most of the gags that were used. The presence of stars (and absence of a real starscape). The line-up of the planets, astronomically implausible and wrongly proportioned. The various circular promenades; from the stumbling Russians up on the curve of the space station, to the lack of any shot where both astronauts are moving freely around the Discovery ring at the same time.
And you are still requiring that Kubrick...that Stanley Kubrick, the man whose picture appears in the definition for "auteur film-maker"...would chose to produce intentionally poor shots that sabotaged the quality of his most ambitious film.
For what? For the loan of a couple lenses? (Good lenses, but still...!)
But I'm unwilling to accept your premise here. 2001 is a great film, and the choices are sound for that film. He didn't arbitrarily insert a jaguar to the detriment of the Dawn of Man sequence because he was getting a pay-off from the fledgling Apple Corporation (looking forward a few decades to their cat-themed operating systems). And he didn't chose claustrophobic shots filled with glare and stately motion because he was requested to do so as a contrast to the radically different kinds of shots of Apollo EVAs.
Sheesh. As if you wanted a man who told stories and was famed for lighting and the framing of image and the creative use of FILM to direct long unbroken video from a single camera moving restlessly about the same landscape for hour after hour.
The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration. Still a poor match, but....!
LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.
Putting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.So what specifically was the showstopper? What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion? Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here. Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.) The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad. Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
So how much do you really know about movies? Give me $30 billion and I'll fake it. Watch 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Which part?
Do you mean the part where the Earth is lit from the wrong side, is too large, and is in the wrong place in the sky?
Do you mean the part where the lunar terrain is craggy and sharp and quite unlike the Moon we know?
Do you mean the part where stars are perfectly visible in scenes featuring spacecraft with white (or light-colored) hulls (even though said stars form into no recognizable constellations and indeed resemble no part of the night sky).
Do you mean the part where men on a craft traveling across the surface of the Moon move as if in 1G, or the part where men on the surface of the Moon aren't shown in any way being under lunar gravity (aka, the shots are cropped so you often can't even see their lower bodies), or perhaps the part where a pen in zero-G rotates around something other than its own COG?
Perhaps you mean the part where a spacecraft clearly reveals the presence of an atmosphere (in Kubrick's defense, the shot does take place in the depths of an artificial structure that probably does have non-zero contamination by exhausts and similar).
Now that I've had time to think about it...No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.
They [moon rocks] show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present.
Are you saying there's no water on the moon?
"Glass beads within moon rocks suggest that water seen on the lunar surface originates from the solar wind, researchers say." - space.comYes. From the solar wind - an ongoing process which is completely different from the process which formed the rock 3.5 billion years or more ago. That process involved no water, making moon rocks noticeably different from Earth rocks.
http://www.space.com/18058-moon-water-solar-wind.html
The Apollo rocks contain 'zap pits', tiny craters caused by the impact of grains of dust at speeds of tens of kilometres per second. Please describe the process for faking this.Not that I know of. Why should they? The rocks had been collecting zap pits for millions of years at least. The astronauts were on the surface of the Moon for a maximum of 25 hours, proportionately a slightly smaller period of time. You might like to research the rate of micrometeor impact on the Moon.
Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?
2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection. And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.
There you go again. Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.QuotePutting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.So what specifically was the showstopper? What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion? Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here. Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.
There you go again. Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.QuotePutting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.So what specifically was the showstopper? What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion? Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here. Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
Well, make it Lyndon Baines "Gulf of Tonkin" Johnson.As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.LM testing doesn't prove they landed on the moon, let alone took off from the moon. I never said the technology wasn't there to go to the moon.
There you go again. Make a claim then pull it right back when challenged.QuotePutting men on the moon and getting them back is another thing.So what specifically was the showstopper? What do you think made it impossible to go to the moon? And what do you have to support the assertion? Until you answer this question you are just another in a long line of common deniers that we get here. Is that what you want the alexsanchez online legacy to be?
So Nixon, who was inaugurated in January, 1969, told NASA to scrap its successful moon landing program, (which had already successfully performed Apollo 8 a month before he took office), and fake it instead?
No. I said the moon rocks show evidence of having formed in a low gravity vacuum, with no water present. I said nothing about water subsequently arriving, whether on comets or as described in the article below.
You tapdance good, son.Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying). And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk. Why ruin a good thing.
So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Who's Dave?
2001 ASO = Front Screen Projection. And let's not forget about Doug Trumbell?
And...?
If you are thinking Dave's silly claims, by the by, there is a basic bit of information about the use of Scotchlite materials on 2001 that he doesn't appear to know (because he based several of his arguments upon this failure of knowledge).
You tapdance good, son.Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying). And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk. Why ruin a good thing.
So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
(bolded for emphases)You tapdance good, son.Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying). And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk. Why ruin a good thing.
So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
Not saying and not insinuating are two different things. Apollo was a legacy of JFK. Nixon was the president at the time of the moon landing (referring to my previous post.) Nixon was the one handed the Apollo 11 death speech. I don't know why Nixon almost axed 16 and 17. You'd have to ask him.(bolded for emphases)You tapdance good, son.Maybe Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK (not that I'm insinuating anything... just saying). And Nixon had the rest of the Apollo missions to milk. Why ruin a good thing.
So why didn't Nixon blow the whistle on Johnson, a bitter political rival, and humiliate him and his administration?
Then why say it? What a blatantly dishonest statement!
"I am not saying this, except I am."
Couldn't spread the bull shit thicker with a leaking honey wagon.
Nixon hated Apollo, as he well knew that it was mostly the work of his bitter political rivals. The fruit may have undergone its final ripening while under his purview, but the actual planting and tending was by others.
If he wanted to milk it, why did he almost axe Apollo 16 and 17? Why were Apollo 18, 19 and 20 cancelled?
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? [...] Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.What if a single spark during a ground test caused the pressurized pure-O2 environment of an Apollo capsule to burst into flames, killing all three crewmembers? That surely would have caused such public uproar that the entire program would be scrapped... wait, no, that didn't happen. Well, how about a spacecraft in-transit to the moon has an explosion aboard, severely crippling it, causing the crew to barely get back to earth alive. Nobody would dare let another mission... oh, wait... yes, yes they did... four more times.
I'm sure NASA had their fingers crossed either way. If it blew up, I'm sure they had a contingency plan. If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? [...] Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.What if a single spark during a ground test caused the pressurized pure-O2 environment of an Apollo capsule to burst into flames, killing all three crewmembers? That surely would have caused such public uproar that the entire program would be scrapped... wait, no, that didn't happen. Well, how about a spacecraft in-transit to the moon has an explosion aboard, severely crippling it, causing the crew to barely get back to earth alive. Nobody would dare let another mission... oh, wait... yes, yes they did... four more times.
Now, supposing it was a hoax: In front of millions of live witnesses, a Saturn V booster, supposedly with 3 live crewmembers atop it, explodes seconds after launch and the LES clearly failed, "killing" the crew. How do you propose the conspirators would have planned to deal with that scenario? What were they to do with the inconveniently still-breathing would-be astronauts? How does one guarantee a "fake" success when there are still unfakeable elements (e.g. a rocket launch) which cannot be guaranteed to succeed? If that atrocious film Capricorn 1 is good for anything, it demonstrates just how ludicrous the hoax logic is.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint...
the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?
Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air.
Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV.
Image the embarrassment to NASA.
Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again.
The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die.
Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do?
We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
I'm sure NASA had their fingers crossed either way. If it blew up, I'm sure they had a contingency plan. If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.
Not saying and not insinuating are two different things. Apollo was a legacy of JFK. Nixon was the president at the time of the moon landing (referring to my previous post.) Nixon was the one handed the Apollo 11 death speech. I don't know why Nixon almost axed 16 and 17. You'd have to ask him.Then just what did you mean by when you said, "Nixon didn't want to end up like JFK"?
President Nixon spoke to Aldrin and Armstrong during their first walk on the surface of the moon, praising the astronauts and observing the unique importance of the mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_in_popular_culture
if you say you have a patent, and cannot give us evidence to that effect, we must only conclude that you are lying. Just as you say governments ALWAYS lie.Every time some conspiracist claims certain credentials we always take the bait and demand proof of their validity. The resulting rathole diverts the argument away from their original claims, just as they intended.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.) The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad. Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
Also the LM did not work flawlessly. If it did, the Eagle wouldn't have had those program alarms during its descent.That's just one well-known LM glitch. Here are two more. Both have to do with the S-band steerable antenna so I'm familiar with them.
Maybe we really went to the moon.The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.) The scenes shot on the moon were intentionally made to look bad. Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA. The moon scenes are the only scenes in the movie that look fake. The lack of continuity is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Kubrick knew walking on the moon wouldn't have looked like that.
No, not really - one glaring example that comes to mind is a scene on the "moon shuttle" where a tray floats up off someone's lap,supposedly in zero-G, visibly swinging from side to side in apparent violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.
Or are Newton's Laws also suspect because they're taught in publicly funded schools?
Maybe we really went to the moon.
Gene Kranz said in his book that NASA fully expected to lose one or two astronauts during Mercury. Gemini had at least two life-threatening emergencies I can think of right now (Gemini 8 spinning out of control and Gene Cernan's self-described "EVA from hell" on Gemini 9). But NASA was not willing to risk lives for Apollo? Explain please.And Cernan again, on Apollo 10 when the LM ascent stage computers sent them into a tumbling cartwheel less than 10 miles off the surface and came (according to Cernan) within two seconds of crashing.
And why did three astronauts die during a test of the Command Module? If it wasn't really going to the Moon, why did they have to test it?
If I have any other questions I know where to come.Maybe we really went to the moon.
That's certainly how all the available evidence is interpreted unanimously by the appropriately educated and experienced people.
If I have any other questions I know where to come.I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
The issue of moon rocks is purely a matter for debate.
...We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.What's with the supposedly?
You only get a couple photons back from a laser burst according to UCSD.This is a good example of the worthlessness of uninformed incredulity.That's right, you only get a couple of photons. But they're enough.
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.If I have any other questions I know where to come.I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
Performed flawlessly every time, indeed. The only reason the missions appeared to go flawlessly was month and years of hard work by all concerned.
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.
You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.If I have any other questions I know where to come.I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
So wait, 2001 is both so well done is shows how you can fake a real moonlanding and already deliberately done poorly.
That's not the most ridiculous thing a conspiracy theorist has said.
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.
What about Apollo 5? Software errors meant the LM didn't perform as expected (a suspected fuel leak meant that the tanks weren't pressurised at the right time, which "tripped" the computer up).The writers of that software take exception to that characterization. The problem was that they were given an incorrect parameter; the software behaved correctly with the given value.
The computer was programmed to abort a burn if it did not see thrust (chamber pressure and/or +X acceleration) within a specified time. Because it was the first DPS burn, the pyro valves on the pressurization system had to be blown. Extra time should have been allowed for the helium to flow, but it wasn't factored into the burn abort timer.
This is why we test...
The point stands. The LM did not perform flawlessly, as Alexsanchez contended.Absolutely true. And the failures it did have, while never serious enough to abort a mission or injure a crew, are of the type that any experienced engineer will most definitely recognize. They came in at least three kinds:
You mean 100% guaranteed success like Iran-Contra, the Watergate break-in and tapes, Potempkin villages, Piltdown Man, the Bruno Hat...
There's video of the LM research vehicle crashing and Armstrong ejecting.That's not Armstrong, but Joe Algranti (LLRV/LLTV crash #2 of 3).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qhcs6qiHLI)
If I have any other questions I know where to come.Might have been better to ask questions right at the start, rather than making the allegation of fakery so stridently and ignorantly, and then having all your goofs and errors pointed out to you in excruciating detail.
While I still maintain it was possible to fakeAnd you're wrong there too - I can nominate several things that would have been impossible to fake. Surely you are aware of the wonderful analyses that are out there showing details that have only recently been able to be verified due to the newly available technologies? A couple of those examples came from posters hereabouts.. I won't nominate them - someone needs to try to teach you to get off your lazy backside and do some decent research. I'll give you a hint for one, though - 'weather'.
there'sFixed that for you.adequateoverwhelming argument to maintain that it wasn't. Along with a comprehensive and completely coherent and consistent historical record, that could only be doubted by someone who hasn't bothered to look at it properly
There's still a few things I want to check out though.As I posted earlier, and you refused to acknowledge, why don't you just do that but *thoroughly*, and then bring back your best, well-researched 'thing'?, instead of the train wreck that has just transpired..
However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
But if the govt gives a geologist a rock and says it's from the moon, the geologist will assume it's from the moon, having nothing to go on to prove otherwise.
Moon rocks from Antarctica could be reconditioned to appear to have come from the moon.
The only video I've seen was Armstrong parachuting to safety after losing control of the LLTV.
I think NASA simply would not have attempted a moon landing with an untested LM,
First, you don't know exactly where you are on the moon due to the manual landing,
The star finder was useless on the moon (my assertion) because the astronauts claimed they couldn't see stars with the naked eye.
That means they had to rely on radar to rendezvous with a speeding bullet.
Getting to the exact orbit would be extremely difficult because the LM IMU did not have the inertial coordinates for the moon, they only had earth coordinates, and rough one's at that due to the gyro drift rate. They wouldn't even have a gyro-compass to get a bearing before liftoff. No theodolite bearing. How do you lift off from an unknown location with an unknown bearing?
The least documented part of the mission, and the most complicated by far, is the rendezvous.
You can slant an experiment to show anything you want.
The missions were infinitely easier to fake than conduct for real,
My patent has really nothing to do with my arguments. The patent happens to be for translating NASA software from an old language to object oriented C++, or any other modern language. It could just as well be used for converting accounting software to C++. My arguments about Apollo stand on their own.
With the moon landings, it's NASA said it and I believe it.
I'd have to do some more research to attempt to prove they aren't there
I'm not here to prove anything. I can't. I'm just here to debate. A devils advocate. It would be great if people could do that with a sense of humor.
Are you saying there's no water on the moon?
Did the astronauts come back with any 'zap pits'?
And the way to fake a moon video is to use a telecine.
The parts in 2001: ASO that looks like they are in zero gravity (they're close enough.)
Kubrick would have been told to do an intentionally bad job showing them walking on the moon in 1968, a time when he would have been working for NASA.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon.
You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it.
It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out?
If the astronauts were prepared to die, I'm sure they were prepared to go into hiding.
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't.
Comin in late due to time differences, but here's my two penn'orth.However, given the number of lies and cover-ups engaged in by the govt, i.e., JFK, etc., I assert that the moon landings were fake.
So not based on any actual examination of evidence then?
What you are doing is the equivalent of trying to convict me of murdering my wife because you have evidence that I lied about things, so I am probably lying about my innocence. Only thing is, you're so fixated on that you've neglected to check if my wife is actually dead. She's not (and she might well pop up here to confirm that in a minute). Since the case hinges on that rather salient point, it would be prudent to check the facts before singing on about motives and likelihood of lying.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
Yes. What is it about domestic violence that lends itself to use in demonstrating logical fallacies?The beginning and ending (or at least potential ending) of relationships have the most dramatic qualities and there is nothing more dramatic than murder. The middle relationship stuff about who is cooking dinner tonight or taking out the garbage is really boring. Murder is a poor way to start a relationship, except in those select few Gothic movies.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so.
the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going.
<handwaving deleted>
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.When you come back, please don't continue to maintain the fiction that you're some sort of aerospace engineer. I asked you politely about your claimed experience, and didn't really get answers. I don't need them any more; it's clear that not only have you inflated your resume, you've performed a burst test on it - and failed rather badly.
If I have any other questions I know where to come.
While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.
...it's clear that not only have you inflated your resume, you've performed a burst test on it --
I am actually getting worried about the number of times you have used this example...
The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration. Still a poor match, but....!
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
The first hoaxie that mentions Doug Trumbell instead will have my undying admiration. Still a poor match, but....!
Doug Trumbull, I think. Though I'm not a hoaxie.
If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so. I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos , but it hung up this macbook I'm using. I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up. If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos, (which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car) then that particular claim will certainly be shot down. However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.
There exists an audio recording of the 13 seconds of Apollo 1 communications between "Fire in the cockpit!" and the cessation of movement within the command module. While a transcript is available, just try to get access to the audio. The notion that NASA would have broadcast the Apollo 11 crew's last gasps for air is simply too ludicrous for words. This is what happens when one's faith in a hoax claim is so strong that reason flies completely out the window.
Why is it that so many HBers can't get their computers to work? Even those with patents in software?Well at least Alex didn't pull a JW, and claim his computer issues were caused by Jay putting a virus on his computer.
As I've said several times, from a technical standpoint, it's the navigation problem of lifting off from the moon. You can go back through my earlier posts about IMU alignment to moon-centered coordinates, and the inability to do so. My main objection is from both a political and statistical standpoint - the only way to insure a guaranteed 100% success was to fake it. It was infinitely more valuable to appear to have gone to the moon than it was to have risked going. What if the astronauts had been stranded on the moon and were forced to sit there until their oxygen ran out? Imagine how sick this country would have felt listening to their final transmissions down to their last gasp for air. Imagine the astronauts saying goodbye to their families from the moon, broadcast on live TV. Image the embarrassment to NASA. Americans would have said cancel the space program because we can't live through that again. The entire world would have been listening to the astronauts as they waited to die. Given those political odds, what to you think Nixon, a career politician enamored with his own image, would have chosen to do? We got nothing out of going to the moon except national prestige, and political and military advantage, and supposedly a bunch of moon rocks.
H. David Reed, flight dynamics officer (FIDO), Green Team, Mission Control:
My job was to come in prior to ascent, find out where they landed, and use that information to compute their launch time. Then we'd upload that to the crew. When I called the tracking people, the guy at the other end of the line said, "Dave, take your pick. I've got five different landing sites." He said: We know where the lunar module thinks it landed, where the backup guidance system thinks it landed, where the radars on the ground tracked them, where we targeted them, and now we've got the geologists saying a different location.
I took my headset off, which is what you do if you don't want anybody to hear what you are about to say, and told Gene Kranz, "We have a problem: We do not know where the hell they are." There was only one way to figure that out. The capcom woke Buzz Aldrin one rev early to do a rendezvous radar check. Because I knew where the command module was and I had the vectors that allowed me to translate back down to the surface, I could find out where the lunar module was. They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had.
Bruce McCandless, astronaut (CAPCOM), Green Team, Mission Control:
In the meantime, Mike Collins in the command module orbiting overhead was tasked to use a telescope to try to locate the lunar module. Poor guy never really got any sleep for trying to find it.
Hugh Blair-Smith, software engineer for the Apollo guidance computer, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory:
The lunar orbit rendezvous wasn't that different from what the Geminis did in Earth orbit. But it was more nerve-wracking because if it didn't work, where everybody would be left was not going to be very good for them. Deciding to do the lunar orbit rendezvous, to put the pieces back together to come home, took big, big balls. But they did it because everything else had much bigger problems.
In order to dock with the command/service module, the lunar module executed a series of burns--including two behind the moon--in a complex sequence lasting nearly 4 hours.
...I discovered the complete spacecraft communications audio was not resitricted.
...
My initial thought was that we would not include it in this set.
As I listened to the material myself, the Apollo 1 fire was transformed from a historical event into a human tragedy with definable features.
...
We included the audio because it is part of the story of Apollo 1, and space flight is a dangerous business. The conquest of space has already cost several human lives, and will doubtless cost more. This cost in precious treasure should be faced directly, and as the mission of Spacecraft Films has been to present the history of space exploration in as real a manner as possible, I felt this record should be included. Since one cannot "look away from a sound" we have also provided an edited version of this material should you wish to refrain from hearing the very short but disturbing last transmission.
If NASA wanted Kubrick to direct, the Apollo footage would have been filmed where Kubrick was.
"They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had."
That can't be right ???
We have it. It's on the Spacecraft Films Apollo 1 DVD. It's an optional track, but it's all there.
Oh God, and that isa real prayer, I am never, ever listening to that.
I watched Challenger explosion a couple years ago on youtube. It was horrible. My brain did a Blue Screen of Death after for quite some time. It still glitches out thinking about it.
As I have said before, now I know what a time traveller feels. :'(
Second, Buzz would have punched him at some point. Seriously. The way Kubrick directed would have driven him crazy. Kubrick was known for doing sometimes literally hundreds of takes, trying to drive all emotion out of his actors. He got takes the way he wanted, and he felt the only way to do that was to be a slave driver. He emotionally abused poor, miscast Shelley Duvall to make her act the way he felt her character should in The Shining. Frankly, I've always been surprised that Jack Nicholson didn't punch him.
Indeed the audio is on the DVD. From the sleeve notes written by Mark Gray on the DVD:Quote...I discovered the complete spacecraft communications audio was not resitricted.
...
My initial thought was that we would not include it in this set.
As I listened to the material myself, the Apollo 1 fire was transformed from a historical event into a human tragedy with definable features.
...
We included the audio because it is part of the story of Apollo 1, and space flight is a dangerous business. The conquest of space has already cost several human lives, and will doubtless cost more. This cost in precious treasure should be faced directly, and as the mission of Spacecraft Films has been to present the history of space exploration in as real a manner as possible, I felt this record should be included. Since one cannot "look away from a sound" we have also provided an edited version of this material should you wish to refrain from hearing the very short but disturbing last transmission.
I've listened to it. It's a very... strange experience. The result is that, as Mark says in his DVD sleeve notes, Apollo 1 has become much more than an account of some deaths in the space program to me.
"They were off another 5 miles from anything that we had."
That can't be right ???
It could be, if he's talking about the the rendezvous radar check.
I was actually one of the people who advised Mark to keep the As-204 audio complete for historical accuracy.
Please can you expand on that? Is he not talking about the actual lunar location of the LM?
There was no snake in the A Clockwork Orange book - Kubrick put in a pet snake for Alex when he found out Malcolm McDowell was terrified of reptiles.
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
But despite the stranded-on-the-moon scenario, I just can't picture Aldrin or Armstrong sitting down and waiting to die while there was anything at all they could reroute, hot-wire, or bang on with a hammer.
I was actually one of the people who advised Mark to keep the As-204 audio complete for historical accuracy.
Thanks, I'm glad you did. I actually own way too few of the Spacecraft Films series. I keep hoping people will gift them to me, but it seems they never do. However on the plus side, we have a public monitor in our office pod here, and we run through what we have on a regular basis.
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.In the real old stories, the computer being on the fritz means some guy (or gal, lots of women in that field) is taking a sick day. ;D
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.
Anybody who thinks the reduced or zero-g sequences in '2001' are accurate hasn't seen the movie recently (or ever). While a breakthrough for its time, it was released in the spring of 1968, half a year before the first manned Apollo flight. No one had ever seen astronauts in a weightless environment big enough to actually let them move, and it would be five more years before astronauts could move around in a volume even remotely comparable to the huge spaceships we see in '2001'.
No, they're (zero gravity sequences in '2001') not. They're really not. They're ingeniously shot but they do not pass muster under close examination as true zero gravity footage.
Puts me in mind of some of those golden-age SF stories, when the computer is on the fritz and the pilots are frantically working their slide rules to plot a course back home.Or where Captain Kirk successfully talks said fritzed computer into destroying itself. Ah, those were the days...
Well. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
I'm not an expert by any means, but it would amaze me if it was rendered impossible as long as they still had control over the ascent engine and RCS system. Remember, on Apollo 13 they performed one burn without any computer assistance by way of keeping Earth in one window as a fixed reference point and timing the burn with a wristwatch.
I'm sure of it, along with every engineer, assistant, and errand boy at Grumman.QuoteBut despite the stranded-on-the-moon scenario, I just can't picture Aldrin or Armstrong sitting down and waiting to die while there was anything at all they could reroute, hot-wire, or bang on with a hammer.
Keep in mind this would also be true of the people at Mission Control. If they could hammer out a launch plan involving engine firing times, using the RCS at specific times to pitchover, and find some way for Armstrong and Aldrin to have a visual reference to keep the spacecraft steady, then they could probably do it using the manual controls and a wristwatch to time the burns.
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.If I have any other questions I know where to come.I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
Please explain this clip.
The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?I think the computers were considered "absolutely essential systems". That's why they had an AGS (Abort Guidance System) completely separate from the PNGS (Primary Navigation and Guidance System, the LM's version of the Apollo Guidance Computer). You hear the crews comparing them constantly during descent and ascent.
I think the computers were considered "absolutely essential systems".
So he had really good ankle strength?Please explain this clip.
Diminished gravity.QuoteThe astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up.
No, the astronaut is operating in diminished gravity.
Your fake contrition lasted less than 24 hours. Do you see why no one believes you?
The estimate of LM location came back about 4-5 miles aware from where most of the other estimates were clustered.Has there ever been a final, definitive explanation for Eagle having overshot its planned landing point?
Particular care was exercised in the operation of both spacecraft throughout the undocking and separation sequences to ensure that the lunar module guidance computer maintained an accurate knowledge of position and velocity.It then says the LM primary guidance system saw the 0.4 fps delta-V and the crew manually nulled it. Any residual delta-V not seen onboard would still have accumulated and been noticed in ground tracking. They undocked a full 2.5 hours before landing, just as they came around to the near side. This gave the ground a full near-side tracking pass before DOI.
The LM could only be flown meaningfully using fly-by-wire, using either PGNS (spelt this way but pronounced "pings") or AGS.Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).
While direct-control methods existed to couple the RHC and THC to the RCS control logicRight. By pushing the stick beyond a certain angle the computer was bypassed and the corresponding engine valves were directly actuated. I suspect (but do not actually know) that this was tested on Apollo 9 but never used operationally. Even Armstrong's much-touted "manual" landing was anything but; the computer was very much involved in making the LM react to his stick inputs as though it was a helicopter.
it is unlikely the LM could be flown manually in this way to a stable orbit.I fully agree -- astronaut bluster notwithstanding. Gene Cernan says that during his Saturn V launch on Apollo 17, he practically 'dared' the IU to fail so he could take over and fly it manually into earth orbit. I'd like to ask him what he would have done had he lost his (IMU and computer-driven) 8-ball at the same time, especially since it was a night launch.
However, with some guesswork, it might be flown to a suborbital trajectory suitable for one of the eccentric CSM rescue procedures. But they would have only an hour or two to devise and effect the intercept.Wow, I had not known there were any suborbital rescue options. That would have been even hairier than the Apollo 13 recovery. A lot faster-paced, too.
So he had really good ankle strength?
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
raven:Fair enough, not an engineer.QuoteWell. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.
Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.Can you figure out why?
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
Yeah, me neither. The question was probably my laymannishness showing.raven:Fair enough, not an engineer.QuoteWell. Gordon Cooper did something like that, rather the reverse actually, to deorbit his Faith 7 capsule. This is just my layman's conjecture, but it would not surprise me.
Actually, I thought of that while I was typing that post. Not taking anything away from Gordo - he was some helluva pilot - but he only had to hold attitude for a few seconds while the retros fired. That's a far cry from several minutes of guiding a busted spacecraft near the ground.
There was also the Lunar Escape Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems), probably about the most bare bones thing ever designed to put a human into orbit around any celestial body.
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).
By pushing the stick beyond a certain angle the computer was bypassed and the corresponding engine valves were directly actuated.
Wow, I had not known there were any suborbital rescue options.
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)You are going to attempt a fringe reset, right?While I still maintain it was possible to fake, there's adequate argument to maintain that it wasn't. There's still a few things I want to check out though.If I have any other questions I know where to come.I have a question for you. Actually, I have several, but this one is forefront. Why the sudden change?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
OK, thx, Jay and others who answered about the LM - that's about what I thought, but I just started wondering.The Apollo 12 interview sounds like something I would enjoy. I laughed out loud reading the interviews with Conrad and Bean in the ALSJ.
Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back? I was looking for it the other day and couldn't remember.
Speaking of programs, has anyone else ever seen a video called Apollo 12 Uncensored ? It was some informal interviews with the AS-12 crew done around 1996 and was pretty hilarious in spots.
But more to the point, that's the kind of thing that adds yet another (non-technical, non-scientific) brick to the wall of Apollo truth; would an evile gubment agency allow three oldfartsheroes to ramble on in front of a video camera, not knowing what they might blurt out in an unguarded moment?
Not because of his belief in a hoax.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!
Certainly if everyone who espoused a conspiracist position were banned, the conversations wouldn't last as long as they do!
Margamatix was an active member of the old forum for four months and made 403 posts before he was banned. He had ample time and freedom to express his views.
Right (and thanks for the PGNS correction, I wasn't sure about that).
I always remember it as "not the way you think it should be spelled."
Jay, what was the name of the program you did the desert photography segment for a few years back?
It's already been said. All the LM had to do was achieve orbit. After that, there was a simple matter (haha) of matching orbit with the CSM. Difficult, but not unattainable. Simply one more engineering challenge among many.For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.
Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.
"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity. Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up." That's the terrain avoidance maneuver. If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.
For all his foolishness, alexsanchez got me thinking about a question I'm hoping Jay or some of the other aerospace expert types here can answer.
Assume that Eagle had some kind of catastrophic computer/electronic failure. Would it be possible for a human being with Neil Armstrong's level of skill and training, assuming that the absolutely essential systems were still somewhat functional, to manually lift off and get into an orbit from which Collins could maneuver to a rendezvous?
One of the experts on here may know for sure, but I'm betting that either Armstrong or Aldrin could have done all the necessary calculations to give them the best chance of a successful docking, using only a pen and paper, including lift off time, burn time, and the timeline for pitchover and then manually flown the the LM into an orbit sufficiently close to have a chance of a successful LOR.
Of course, Mission Control would likely have done all the for them.
A little way down the page is Buzz Aldrin's flown slide rule with letter of authenticity.
"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity.
I was meaning that they would have no trouble calculating where they would have to begin to manually pitch the AS over from vertical to horizontal to make orbit, and at what rate they would need to do that.But could they do that accurately enough by eye, without computers or (even more important) an inertial reference platform? Even with the LMP reading his watch and the attitude table to the CDR?
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Regarding an AULIS pic I put up, after some graphic analysis I have come to the conclusion that the claim is unsubstantiated by the photos.
http://aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/compositevalley.jpg
You could start to fly it by sighting the horizon with the LPD marks on the commander's window. But the horizon would quickly move off the top of the scale, so you'd need some another sighting reference on the LM. There's the overhead rendezvous window, but it's very small and you couldn't get close to it under acceleration. You could roll over on your back and sight the earth if it's in the right place, but then you can't see your ground landmarks for azimuth steering.
He could roll it on its side. The vertical LPD axis would then line-up with the horizon. He might still have azimuth errors, but he'd be in orbit and could finesse it from there, fuel allowing.It might work. You'd have to estimate and control the angle between the LPD axis and the horizon, perhaps by using the small horizontal scale markings on the LPD; not sure what they were for. (Actually, this particular maneuver would be yaw, not roll. The LM axes were defined with respect to the astronauts' heads when in their flight positions, not with respect to the primary thrust axis.)
So he had really good ankle strength?
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)Did you keep watching? In the next clip the fake is supposedly achieved by filming at normal speed and then playing it back at half speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
Please explain this clip. The astronaut is clearly hoisted up while trying to stand up. (it's cued at 2:05)Did you keep watching? In the next clip the fake is supposedly achieved by filming at normal speed and then playing it back at half speed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0#t=125s
So which is it? Wires or half-speed film? Remember, in a single hour-long clip you can't switch between the two methods. (Someone on what's now Cosmoquest tried for something like that - reckoned that long shots were filmed in the desert while close-ups were filmed in a vacuum chamber, but didn't really have an answer for clips which contained both long shots and close-ups.)
And there's also the small fact of the missing hoist. Go back to before the cue-ing point and look at the massive harness the astornaut is wearing when trying to simulate low gravity on Earth. Where is this? Where are the wires attached (at both ends?) Where is the team of people helping them - must have been a very very long piece of nano-wire.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For violating the Terms of Service.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For violating the Terms of Service.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Margamatix was banned for posting a graphic image violating the hosting service's TOS.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?Yes, it did, but not by itself. It rolled of its descent stage. As far as "steampunk", well...
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
QuoteDid this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
Yes. What does that have to do with your claims?
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..
Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time. Not as if he's keeping that a secret. I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..
Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time. Not as if he's keeping that a secret. I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.
You're boring and predictable. The topic is interesting. We always like talking about Apollo.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For violating the Terms of Service.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying. I think the robot looks very cool. I might build one some day. It reminds me of Crab Fu.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Why should the aesthetics of the vehicle affect its performance. (BTW, I think this looks seriously cool.)
If you think it couldn't land on the Moon, what specific parts of the design appear not to be suitable?
I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.
It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For violating the Terms of Service.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
So what's your idea of what a lunar rover should look like, and why?
I debunked one of the Aulis claims myself using a graphic editor.I suspect that he has found the anti-Apollo pages of a certain CT author..
Yes, he's been cribbing from Aulis the whole time. Not as if he's keeping that a secret. I just wonder where the Gish Gallop is heading.
The ascent is a little more involved.
"Pitchover" is the beginning of a programmed set of attitudes that gradually deflect from the local vertical, aimed downrange, at various timed intervals designed to optimally achieve the proper altitude, direction, and downrange velocity. Prior to pitchover, the program is "go straight up." That's the terrain avoidance maneuver. If the pilot had a working "eight ball" (and it could be zeroed manually) then Mission Control could read him a series of pitch angles to fly.
Aldrin could probably have computed a line-of-sight rendezvous, as he did with Gemini. And yes, that's why he was on the Apollo 11 mission. His nickname was "Dr. Rendezvous."
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
I didn't say it couldn't land on the moon.
I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying.
I think the robot looks very cool. I might build one some day. It reminds me of Crab Fu.
...you can fit a twenty-ounce bottle.
When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.
When I think about "cup size" soda bottles aren't the first think that pops into my head.
+1
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837. 2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website. Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first? The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically. How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...) This is why people have questions. Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D
To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.
Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
Who says dicsussions here are boring??
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.
The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically.
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837. 2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website. Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first? The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically. How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...) This is why people have questions. Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D
To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.
Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg
Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.
Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?
The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...
...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same
which means the camera is in about the same place...
lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...
This is why people have questions.
uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
uninformed = false premise
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada...
Lower angle, of course. Look at the level of the horizon against Cernan's PLSS.Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837. 2 shots on the same roll of film directly from the nasa.gov website. Why is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first? The sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same and the reflection in the visor is almost the same, which means the camera is in about the same place, not from a completely different angle horizontally or vertically. How did the earth get into the 2nd pic? (lemmie guess... it's been debunked before...) This is why people have questions. Of course, NASA wouldn't have been so stupid to let this slip by I think.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Well if it didn't.....there goes the standard hoax defence ;D
To paraphrase.....if the Russians could land their laser reflectors on the Moon.....the Apollo ones could also be unmanned. Only they appear at the exact spot the Lunar Modules landed......photographed by the LROC of course.
Any response to your foot shooting post? Care to back peddle and say...."of course they could"?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20385.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg
Yes, I can figure it out. Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by. But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.Here is NASA image 20385 and 20837.
And the Gish Gallop continues.QuoteWhy is the earth seen on the second pic but not the first?
Really? You can't figure it out?QuoteThe sun's glint on the helmet in both pics is the same...
No, it's clearly in a different position. In one its a good 2-3 inches below the shield tab. In the other it's partially occluded by the shield tab.Quote...and the reflection in the visor is almost the same
But clearly not identical. So if you're going to make a quantitative argument, don't beg the question of how much is close enough.Quotewhich means the camera is in about the same place...
How sure are you? Are there any other cues in the image? What do you know about the image?Quotelemmie guess... it's been debunked before...
Many times.QuoteThis is why people have questions.
You don't have "questions." You just mindlessly regurgitate someone else's 10-year-old stuff to try to look smart.
First of all, no, a spherical reflector is not a good line of sight reference. And if you'd actually paid attention to the visor reflection, you can see for yourself that the photographer is standing in one frame and kneeling in the other. He's reflected in the visor.
Second, there are at least half a dozen cues to the camera position and orientation that I was able to find just glancing at the photo.
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures. We can see him kneel, detach the camera from the RCU, and aim it upward to take the second shot, which includes the Earth.
Yes, I can figure it out.
Like I said, I don't believe NASA would let that slip by.
But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
Yes, I can figure it out.
Then why did you volunteer a wrong answer?
There is nothing left but trolling.
As far as "steampunk", well...I can't really object too much to this word. Traditional Russian space engineering practice was visually distinctive. They often used tank-like structures (sometimes even pressurized) for thermal control, while the Americans preferred lightweight structures open to vacuum and to control temperatures with more intricate (and delicate) optical coatings.
First of all, "steampunk" machines generally don't include solar cells, X-ray spectrometers, radioisotope heaters and such.
Second of all, appeal to ridicule is a standard tool of ignorant laymen
But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.
The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.
Do I get a T-shirt?
Do I get a T-shirt?
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens?
I posted my real name, a patent in my real name and my accreditation from the institute of engineers just up thread. What are you afraid of?So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
Cernan did however take photos of Schmitt with the earth above him too; AS17-134-20383 and AS17-134-20384. There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs. Apparently it was Cernan's idea to get the earth in the flag pictures, and I for one am very glad he thought of it.The trump card is that the LRV caught video of Cernan taking both pictures.Schmitt took these two pictures. They are of Cernan, as we can tell from the red commander's stripes on his helmet and upper arms.
Do I get a T-shirt?
No, it is the "dissidents" as you call them that can't seem to post without breaking multiple rules or even outright trolling. But even non-"dissidents" have been banned too.It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.Alex, this wire claim was debunked on the old board about eight years ago. Next?I see the guy who argued for it was banned.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1 (http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=608&page=1)
For violating the Terms of Service.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?Why not?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
So boring this thread has stretched to 33 pages.It seems the terms of service only apply to dissidents.
I would hope that anyone who posts graphic pictures of execution victims to the boards would be banned no matter what their stance on Apollo.Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Come up with something better; you are becoming boring.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
There's also a very clear change in angle between those two photographs.Yes, there is.
uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something). Target code ran on an i386.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.
Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
I get it right by instinct. The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something). Target code ran on an i386.
So what happened? You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?
Lemme ask you this. If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.
Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder. I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet. Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything. Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.
Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder. I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet. Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything. Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.
I thought the Apollo camera film made positives (slides), not negatives?But, it looks like the FOV has changed. They should be 63 degrees. I'm looking at the angle between the top of the antenna and the earth.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....how exactly does one change the FOV on a fixed lens? The FOV was 49 degrees on a 6x6 plate.
Correction: The FOV on the ALSJ pictures is nearer 47 degrees, because the blurred bits on the edges were cropped out. I did have a link to the full negative scans but can't find it.
The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder. I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet. Probably somebody has done that, but I haven't seen anything. Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.
I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.
I get it right by instinct. The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something). Target code ran on an i386.
So what happened? You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?
Lemme ask you this. If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I am amazed that our resident former USAF engineer couldn't work that out. I blame the lack of finger puppets.Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.
Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
What do you mean "writing on metal?" This was software. Sounds like you think I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I did it. If I want to transport code to a different processor, I recompile the source code for that target processor.I get it right by instinct. The development package was crap and we had to correct errors in the generated code all the time.uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something). Target code ran on an i386.
So what happened? You use your entire brain to do your work, but to show that every one of your co-workers is either an idiot or a liar you don't need to actually think that hard?
Lemme ask you this. If you are about to program in an unfamiliar environment, do you just assume you will get it right purely by instinct and accident, or do you actually ask for the development package?
I'd love to see you do that transporting code to a different embedded processor. Especially when the registers and timer flags don't always match.
The thing is, when you are writing on metal, you don't get a compiler error and a chance to go back and fix it. You get components in smoke.
The possible changing of FOV is what makes me wonder.
I haven't checked the pics in a graphic editor yet.
Hard to say for sure just eyeballing it.
Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.
Wilful? Prattle? You must have gone to Oxford. Wait a minute... ignorant is an adjective. You can't use it like that in a sentence. Bored [sic] is misspelled. This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
What do you mean "writing on metal?" This was software. Sounds like you think I don't know what I'm talking about, even though I did it. If I want to transport code to a different processor, I recompile the source code for that target processor.
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.Wilful? Prattle? You must have gone to Oxford. Wait a minute... ignorant is an adjective. You can't use it like that in a sentence. Bored [sic] is misspelled. This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.More like someone who is impatient with a wilful ignorant. I think the members of this bored have been more than considerate to your prattle.
Did this Jules Verne steampunk looking thing actually land on the moon?
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/LROCiotw/Lunokhod1.jpg
Why should the aesthetics of the vehicle affect its performance. (BTW, I think this looks seriously cool.)
If you think it couldn't land on the Moon, what specific parts of the design appear not to be suitable?
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.
Alex, I promise you that you do not want to go down the "picking on grammar" road with me.bring it on.
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.I wouldn't doubt it, it seems to be a badge of honor in HB circles. Of course, they never admit that they were banned for their behavior, and not their beliefs.
Sir, your errors far exceed even the most generous definition of pedantry.
Indeed; obvious troll is obvious. He has no leg to stand upon for any of his on-topic material, so he stoops to critiquing spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I'll bet in a few minutes he'll be complaining about the font.
I'm not feeding him the details of his latest error in photographic interpretation. If I did that, he'd just wait a bit and then "confirm" my details through "his" investigation. But I'm not giving him any clues -- just the proposition that his analysis is wrong. Watch how he scrambles trying to guess what he has to do to discover it. This is how you root out the charlatans, the ones who pump you for details that they can regurgitate later and pretend it was "their" analysis that found it. They'll admit error, but only errors they "find" themselves and "correct." It's anathema for this type to have to admit there's something they don't know. Such fragile egos. The kind that quibble over spelling.
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet?
I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
It's that last that is hardest for our friend to understand. He seems to have a one-chance, do-or-die, one ring to rule them all idea of how any of these alignments or maneuvers or, really, anything else can be performed. The idea of a quorum, or even of error bars, seems totally alien to him.
And stuck in this idea that there has to be one gold standard perfect reference at the start of the process, he simply can not adapt to the idea that -- as Jay so well explained it many posts back -- rendezvous isn't designed that way. It isn't ballistic. You don't have to compute the final landing based upon the first position reckoning you made, ever.
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Forgive my ignorance (I'm not an engineer and talk of orbital mechanics leaves me feeling like a chimpanzee on hearing scientists talk about quantum physics), but isn't that a bit like saying that if I get my car an inch in the wrong place when I move off my driveway, then I'm going to miss my destination by a mile???
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Forgive my ignorance (I'm not an engineer and talk of orbital mechanics leaves me feeling like a chimpanzee on hearing scientists talk about quantum physics), but isn't that a bit like saying that if I get my car an inch in the wrong place when I move off my driveway, then I'm going to miss my destination by a mile???
Albeit this is all kinds of wrong.How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up?
If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.
yesHow about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
yesHow about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?yes
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation. Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM? I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.yesHow about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
Was this at all correctable during the course of the rendezvous process?
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation. Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM? I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.yesHow about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range. I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly), and they almost aborted a launch in flight (that's when they blow it up.) I've got to talk to some people about this alignment issue.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
Since you're back on the subject, how about telling us exactly what degree of precision is needed in determining the LM's position in order to afect a successful liftoff and rendezvous. Have you managed to grasp that those two things were not one and the same process yet?
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
Would you characterize a downrange error as being the most problematic for successful rendezvous?
Was this at all correctable during the course of the rendezvous process?
I think that's what I am getting at. Is Alexsanchez saying that the LM is nothing more than a glorified skyrocket (albeit, one that can keep itself pointing in the direction that it was launched at)...basically, pick a target in the sky and it fires at that position? :o :oOne non engineer to another:
Even a dumb-ass like me recognises that the embedded computer system, along with the control system, inertial platform, inputs from rendezvous radar and so on, could react in real-time to new data and alter its trajectory. ::)
Do you believe a downrange error in orbital position is impossible to correct with the spacecraft RCS system? Do you even know what the RCS system is?
Again, do you understand that getting into orbit and meeting the CSM are two separate processes?
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM? I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.
Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.So why don't you start investigating.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers ;D
p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM? I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
Yes of course! It always made me wonder why they called it a 70mm..... when it had a 60mm lens fitted, and of course the film is colour positive not negative(thank you for the correction alexsanchez). The high standards of this forum are hard to live up to for novice debunkers ;D
p.s. I'm not a photographer, this is just from stuff I've read in the past.
70mm refers to the film it takes.
HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?
I realise this is my first post here and I do apologise for jumping in in such a long thread, but:
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything, make a rock appear to be younger, not older.[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] ;)
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything, make a rock appear to be younger, not older.[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] ;)
anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
sshhh, they are not supposed to know that....
Just see if you get your NWO check this month.
I'd actually say about 1 foot accuracy in xyz, but small fraction of a degree in azimuth and elevation.
Do you have thrust vectoring on the LM?
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
You know less about this than many high school students.
You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.
Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done.
No. You are manifestly uninformed. You've repeatedly shown you haven't the slightest knowledge of Apollo technology, science, or techniques. You didn't even know the LM had an RCS, but that was just the latest entrant in your parade of Apollo ignorance. I stand by my characterization.uninformed = false premiseI didn't say it couldn't land on the moon. I just think the Soviet Union had a predilection for lying...So, an uninformed appeal to ridicule, followed by a wish-washy half-retraction.
You said you worked space station guidance. What exactly did you do?
...on ISS I took equations from a requirements document and coded them into Ada (using a HP Unix workstation and some drag and drop CASE program, called X-something). Target code ran on an i386.So, even if I am willing to stipulate to this claim, what you did was programming something an engineer handed you. You've characterized yourself as an experienced aerospace engineer; you're not. You don't know what you're talking about, and even if the few details of your alleged CV are true you're a computer programmer/technician - and I guarantee that none of the high-powered aerospace buddies you claim to have endorse your nonsense about Apollo. And you certainly are not qualified to comment on Apollo guidance issues, despite your misrepresentation to the contrary. That wasn't only dishonest, but also foolish; did you really think you had a chance to fool guys like Jay, ka9q, Bob, etc.?
I'm glad your experience with high school students has been more positive than mine :)
The Hasselblad EDC used a 70mm Biogon lens....Actually the lunar surface cameras had nonremovable 60 mm f/5.6 lenses carefully matched to their Reseau plates. The cameras for internal cabin use lacked Reseau plates so they could use removable lenses with a variety of focal lengths.
I recall dialogue (I think it was from Apollo 16 last EVA) where an astronaut asks if they're done with the long lens, and the Capcom tells him, yeah, he can toss it. *cringe*
sts60, your posts are EPIC.(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.
they put a human midget inside each one on a suicide-mission to drive them on the Moon.
:o
I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
It is a little mean spirited of me, but a blunder of such magnitude bears reminding, especially since they have shown, as yet, no understanding of exactly what they got wrong.I don't think RCS is ever used with the main engine.
You don't know?..why do you post about something you know nothing about?
edit to add...and why do I post essentially the same as others already have?....because I missed reading a page...DOH!
bring it on.
You should be nice to me. I'm the one trying to get you off the moon. I'm not regurgitating nonsense. My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original. I understand your discomfort with originality. Sheeple? Moi? That's called "projecting." A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.
So they used the:The New and Improved MagiTech™ MoonRock Oven®
Will fool every geologist in the world, even those you haven't bribed yet!*
(*Not available in this and the next 3 parallel Universes. Sales Taxes where applicable.)
Come to think of it, how many geologists live in million-dolar mansions and drive Maseratis?Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.So why don't you start investigating.
So far you have only mindlesly regurgitated nonsense fabricated by hoax promoters.
Why are you such a sheeple?
I can launch a spacecraft from 180 degrees around the planet from my target vehicle and still effect a rendezvous with it using a series of phasing steps. These techniques were worked out in the early 1960s and practiced during Gemini. And it's how we've accomplished every orbital rendezvous since -- 4 decades' worth. You're still suck on the "hit a bullet with a bullet" layman's misconception.
I'm not regurgitating nonsense. My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
I understand your discomfort with originality.
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.
I've personally witnessed that when somebody gave me an equation with a wrong sign (+/-) that caused an error in the least significant bit of a calculation related to IMU alignment, which gets integrated (added repeatedly),
...and they almost aborted a launch in flight...
In the meantime, what year are we supposed to have another manned lunar mission?
On first reading, I took that as "180o out of plane". Duh. I was thinking, boy, I hope he brought a BP credit card along. :-[
You should be nice to me.
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.
I'm not regurgitating nonsense. My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
I understand your discomfort with originality.
Sheeple? Moi? That's called "projecting."
A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"
You should be nice to me.
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.
I'm not regurgitating nonsense. My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
I think we have a lock for Post Of The Thread award. Andromeda, take note!How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.
No. It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.
First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page). Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision? Do you really think the have to be? Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?
No, it was never a requirement to fix the launch position of any space vehicle to that precision, no matter its mission or destination. You're just pulling numbers out of your orifice because you have no clue what you're talking about and want to sound impressive. Laymen think everything in aerospace has to be established to absurd tolerances. Some things yes. It takes an engineer to know which. Laymen just apply absurd requirements across the board.
Second, ...
You should be nice to me.
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
I understand your discomfort with originality.
Sheeple? Moi? That's called "projecting."
It seems to me that infusing a rock with radiation would, if anything, make a rock appear to be younger, not older.[HB]Not when using government top secret particle beam weapon technology![/HB] ;)
You should be nice to me.Why?
I'm the one trying to get you off the moon.You are the one spouting ignorant nonsense.
I'm not regurgitating nonsense.Yes, you are.
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.Heard it before.
I understand your discomfort with originality."Originality" is useless if it gets wrong results.
Sheeple? Moi?Oui.
That's called "projecting."It's an observation.
A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
It's not a touchy subject. Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done. Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.
How about 3 decimal places in feet, since the CM is only 60 miles up? If you're off by a hair, it turns into miles down range.
No. It's hard to imagine where to begin addressing all the fail[ure] in this statement.
First, three decimal places in feet is 0.001 foot or 0.012 inch, or about 3 sheets of cheap laser printer paper (ca. 0.004 inch per page). Do you really think rockets launched from Earth are routinely placed on the launch pad to that precision? Do you really think the have to be? Do you honestly think through these claims before you make them?
Optical measurement in a stationary LM is possible to 0.02° (with astronauts demonstrating interpolation ability to near 0.01°) using the AOT. The pre-launch IMU alignment procedure uses three factors, although theoretically only two factors are required to achieve suitable alignment. These are combinations of gravity measurements and celestial sightings. Three factors are used to allow one factor to be grossly in error; only two of the factors have to work. Today's off-the-shelf automatic star trackers achieve 3-10 arcseconds (0.0008-0.0027°) of precision, now finer than most IMU resolutions.
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
I'd guess the thermal expansion of the Saturn V stack was greater than that. Much greater.
Although I suppose the tracker could compensate for the date of observation as well...
Asking what you think.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Was this post meant to have a point?
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Asking what you think.
Asking what you think.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Was this post meant to have a point?
Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment. Is that absurd? Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Begging the question.
Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.
But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?
What are your qualifications?
Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?
Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment. Is that absurd? Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Begging the question.
Apollo 11 did go to the moon and land, and did not fake the video.
But instead of asking questions, why don't you answer some instead?
What are your qualifications?
Do you know where Stanley Kubrick lived and worked during the time you say he was faking Apollo?
Do you have any response at all to the numerous replies to your absurd comments about IMU alignment precision?
Asking what you think.
This is a convenient time to start caring what I think. How about, instead of trying to play childish games, you address the part where I tore your IMU argument to shreds? When you demonstrate you care what I think about that, you can start asking me questions about something else.
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment. Is that absurd?
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video.
I was asking Jay.
sts60, your posts are EPIC.(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment. Is that absurd? Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.'Some people', eh? Do those people include you?
Every rocket launched on earth goes through an IMU alignment. Is that absurd?
Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.
(blushes) Well, thank you, but Jay, Bob, ka9q, etc. are doing all the heavy lifting in this thread.
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake. Don't remember the last name. Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance. Guess not.Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.
You were asking Jay, what? If he agreed with you?
You simply can not be that ignorant.
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake. Don't remember the last name. Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance. Guess not.Some people think the landing was real, but they faked the video. I was asking Jay.
You were asking Jay, what? If he agreed with you?
You simply can not be that ignorant.
Of course he can. Remember "Buzz Armstrong"?
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake. Don't remember the last name. Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance. Guess not.
I was just reminiscing about old times when I brought up Patrick not knowing about the RCS.
Wasn't that the same guy that had a special fixation on astronaut poo?
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake. Don't remember the last name. Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance. Guess not.
Yeah, and there's someone doing that on Cosmoquest too, but he got suspended.
...I wonder where they will go next?
I am pleased someone is able to do the dirty work around here when it needs doing....I wonder where they will go next?
Above Poop Secret?
Pooplike Productions?
Call Of Doodie?
YouPoop?
Okay, I'm done.
Heh. So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.
The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" filmsLearn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius.
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
As far as I know, the color emulsion was standard Ektachrome.
I don't remember if we've discussed why it wasn't Kodachrome, which has better dye stability.
Rumor has it that Kodak developed Estar film for spy satellite photography, which makes a lot of sense.
The lenses were replaceable. On the J-missions they took a 500mm lens for shooting mosaics of distant terrain.I'm pretty sure those were separate cameras with 500mm lenses permanently attached. They were carried in addition to the usual EDCs with 60mm lenses. They did take some spectacular pictures, such as the west face of Hadley Rille and the flanks of the mountains around the J-sites.
Yes, third-generation star trackers can go from no-initial-fix to 90% confidence of a 3-arcsecond tolerance in a little under a minute.I wonder how hard that would be to build from scratch with cheap CCD cameras. I'm thinking of an AMSAT application.
I wonder how hard that would be to build from scratch with cheap CCD cameras. I'm thinking of an AMSAT application.
If I may make my guess, at this point he is trying to get banned.anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
There's parts available that are basically a camera-on-a-chip, a sensor (often CMOS instead of CCD) and everything needed to read out an imageMy main concern is the sun. Even though modern cameras aren't damaged by it, it will severely overload the sensor and produce major artifacts like bleeding. If I could knock the sensitivity down enough to minimize these artifacts, I could use the sun's position in the image as attitude data. Alternatively I'd have to build a separate dedicated sun sensor, or simply analyze solar cell currents to determine the sun's direction.
You should be nice to me. I'm the one trying to get you off the moon. I'm not regurgitating nonsense. My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original. I understand your discomfort with originality. Sheeple? Moi? That's called "projecting." A great man once said, or maybe it was Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I?"HOW DO YOU FAKE A ROCK?Dontcha know that NASA can do anything it sets its mind to, except go to the Moon.
So they used the:The New and Improved MagiTech™ MoonRock Oven®
Will fool every geologist in the world, even those you haven't bribed yet!*
(*Not available in this and the next 3 parallel Universes. Sales Taxes where applicable.)
Come to think of it, how many geologists live in million-dolar mansions and drive Maseratis?Why so testy? Sounds like someone who knows they're on thin ice. I must be striking a nerve. The truth does not suffer investigation.So why don't you start investigating.
So far you have only mindlesly regurgitated nonsense fabricated by hoax promoters.
Why are you such a sheeple?
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people.
I'd also want the sensor to recover quickly enough to provide usable star field images when the spacecraft is spinning and alternately viewing the sun and dark sky. Of course there would be a limit to the tolerable spin rate as it would limit exposure times and sensitivity would suffer. Maybe I'd need some other kind of attitude sensor for this situation and reserve the star trackers for when the spacecraft is almost stable.
Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?anybody figure out how to do a lunar rendezvous without an IMU alignment yet? I'm looking into that. I know that's a touchy subject.
It's not a touchy subject. Everyone but you knows how to do it, and how it was done. Don't pretend your ignorance on the subject is anyone's problem but yours.
The vast majority of medium format still cameras used the 61.5mm wide "120", "220" or "620" filmsLearn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.
Okay, it was the 110, I think. I know it was 1-something, but I haven't had the camera in years. Why would I? They probably don't make film for it!
My nonsense (IMU alignment) is original.
Learn something every day! I handled a lot of medium format film way back in my junior high school photography days, and I'd always just assumed it was the same width as 70mm movie film, just no sprocket holes. I never measured it or did the math.
No, it was a small cartridge, the smallest available.
Asking what you think.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Was this post meant to have a point?
Asking what you think.Did Apollo 11 go to the moon and land while still faking the video?
Was this post meant to have a point?
OK guys and gals, fun's fun but can we lay off just a bit.
Yes, 'Alex' has shown gross ignorance even I can see, but its getting a bit much. We don't have to treat him nice, but we should be at least somewhat civil.
My first camera when I was very young was a 126 Cartridge camera. Grey and black plastic. thumb wheel winder and a 'bright' or 'cloudy' settingThat pretty much matches my first camera. It had a very wide angle lens. I took many photos of birds that came out as nothing but a dark spots, until I got some instruction on how to take photos rather than just use the camera.
Maybe not the best choice for me, as medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.
Later, I seriously injured myself cracking open one of those stupid 126 cartridges./quote]
There's a technique for doing that safely.
You grip the ends of the cartridge with both hands, with your stronger hand holding the take-up reel end so that you can feel the film drive lugs on the ends of the reel with your thumb and the inside of your first finger just below the knuckle joint, then twist the take-up end away from you. The cover of the take-up end will simply "peel" open without leaving any sharp edges, and you'll end up holding just the take-up reel.
I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet. He did leave with the hilarious accusation that apollo 14 was a fake because the astronauts couldn't have found their way back to the lm without knowing their position by the stars. I suppose following their footprints on a rock that had never been inhabited for 4 billion years could have led them anywhere! Much better to bring a theodolite and a plumb line. I think it is marvellous that he is bringing his 'expertise' to the problem of orbital rendezvous.Wow, he really did not think that one through. :o
Wow, he really did not think that one through. :o
I see Patrick/fattydash/goodnightsnookums/alexsanchez has been banned (again) from cosmoquest for being a sock puppet.It looks like he's back at JREF with a sock named littleelvira.
And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.Meh, JREF spotted it last time, CQ spotted it this time. Let's have a race for who will spot it next time.
Patrick, why do you keep lying to sign up all these sock-puppets? Isn't that awfully hypocritical of you, given how much you claim other people are lying?
And do you think you're actually fooling anybody? At all?
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder.Heh. So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
I posted a question on a physics forum...
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous.
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
"NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
66 years old, living on So-shallow Security in western Washing, USA. Asperger syndrome, was not recognize in my day, so I lacked the special attention some of us get nowadays. Back then, we were just misfits. Despite a genius IQ, I did poorly in school, earning only half a pair of assoshit arse dungarees (AA degree). If my model ever becomes mainstream, they will have to award me a PhD, like they did for Einstein, so they can say only PhDs are smart enough to think outside the box. You can find the naked-scientist discussion of my Fractal Foam Model of Universes in the New Theories forum.
...but states no experience relevant to the problem in question.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder.Heh. So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new
The response was interesting:
"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.
Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous. Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields. Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field
But, importantly, Alexsanchez thinks what is stated supports his position.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder.Heh. So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new
The response was interesting:
"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.
Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous. Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields. Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field
I heard a guy named Jay on a radio show one time saying Apollo was real, but for some reason the video was fake. Don't remember the last name. Thought it might have been the same Jay by chance. Guess not.
Guess not. Now do you have anything material to say to the several posts here that effectively refute your claims and illustrate your deception and incompetence?
I think you have so much of this sockdoc puppet activity going on, that you probably forgot you made the claim here and not Baut/CQ!
Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
Classic HB....find some random person who makes a comment that vaguely supports your ignorant claim....
medium format film (with the paper backing) is much, much harder to load on the reel for a first-timer with no instruction whatsoever.Uh, you're supposed to remove the paper backing before you put the film on the developing reel. :P
And his latest coprophilic sock-puppet on JREF is suspended en route to a ban.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder.Irrelevant, Apollo did not use automatic astrotrackers due to size, weight, and power considerations, when the pilot(s) could do the necessary alignment checks and adjustments with far simpler equipment.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new
The response was interesting:
"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF.
...
The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.
"Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."And he is as wrong as you, though it's possible he was simply [mis]led to that conclusion by all the blatant question begging in your query. Elevation was completely irrelevant, and as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous. Any precision beyond that, in terms of location, alignment, or relative position of the CSM, merely allowed for a better rendezvous. Of course they would want the best data they could get, to save time and fuel, and, yes, for pride in a job well done, but also for improved safety margins in case any problems occurred.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any maned landings.
(check out "a fourth gimbal for Christmas" (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/gimbals.html) at ALSJ)Last year I asked Owen Garriott if he remembered this exchange. He didn't, but I'm not surprised as it was a long time ago.
as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.Right, but it's even simpler than that.
I posted a question on a physics forum about IMU alignment and using a star finder.Heh. So they probably don't take sightings on Rigel Kent!As a matter of fact, no they don't. It wasn't on the list of Apollo guide stars despite its brightness, and I haven't heard of star trackers using it either. The yearly parallax and the fact that it's a double (or maybe triple) star probably both contribute to that.
As I understand it (Jay, correct me if I'm wrong), the two stars traditionally used with star trackers were Canopus and Sirius. They're not as far apart as you'd like (90 degrees would be ideal) nor is Sirius all that far away but they're both bright and easy to spot.
Nowadays more stars are used, and in some cases entire star field images are looked up in a catalog, which is pretty neat.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46824.new#new
The response was interesting:
"About that same time, I was trained to repair astrotrackers for USAF. Using a best known attitude from various other instruments, like magnetic compass and gyroscopic stable platform, the astrotracker would find a guide star in its telescope. A spinning radial raster would generate a signal indicating which direction the telescope needed to look to center on the guide star. Once it locked onto the guide star, it became the new best known attitude reference.
Back then, they still used mechanical gyroscopes. Nowadays, the gyros are electronic with no moving parts. The astrotrackers I worked on were heavy and bulky. NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
This person thinks they would have needed some additional equipment to have performed a liftoff and rendezvous. Note that a magnetic compass on the moon would have been useless as the moon only has local magnetic fields. Also, how do you use a star finder when you can't see stars with the naked eye?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_moon_have_a_magnetic_field
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings.[/i]"
35mm has no paper backing, but you had to use a can opener to ease the cap off the flat end of the cassette without bending it too badly or damaging the film inside.
I found that giving the 'top hat' a hard slam onto a bench would pop the cassette open without needing a can opener.
I used to buy a bulk roll and use it to load up re-fillable casettes.
You're funny, Alex. You've got practitioners telling you how it is and you choose instead to believe an anonymous self-confessed crank.
Why is it so hard to accept?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry."NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry."NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry.
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
Buzz Armstrong
The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That's one of the most ignorant things you've said, and that's saying something.
...whatever it is all you're doing is making yourself look even more ignorant than the average HB.
Yes I have. Next?If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry.Who's "'Buzz' Armstrong"?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Yes I have. Next question.If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry."NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Yes I have.
Even if he's telling the truth as he saw it, the atmosphere itself acts as a source of light that screws up the night vision required to see stars. Something that does not apply to the moon.
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings. But you're stuck on the moon without navigation. I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.Yes I have. Next question.If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Then you are deliberately lying.
Next troll.
Yes I have. Next?
But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.
I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
The former would not surprise me, and the latter would amuse me. I've looked at the moon through binoculars in the day time, but I don't remember seen stars, but, again, Earth has a quite significant atmosphere.Even if he's telling the truth as he saw it, the atmosphere itself acts as a source of light that screws up the night vision required to see stars. Something that does not apply to the moon.
True. Maybe Alex looked through an unfocused, dusty piece of junk for 2 microseconds before giving up. Or maybe his next claim is that he used a telescope as a gunsight while taking part in a super-secret mission to rescue Batman while working for BoeingDuPont.
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.
No, we have navigation. It works. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it inoperable.
Once again, do you understand that liftoff and rendezvous were separate phases with their own engineering issues and solutions?
What are your qualifications?
Where did Stanley Kubrick live and work during Apollo?
Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.Yes I have. Next question.If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Then you are deliberately lying.
Next troll.
But you're stuck on the moon without navigation.
I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous.
I wrote the book on it.
"...the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation."
(Not without seeing stars. And that still doesn't give you your position. How do you calculate a trajectory??? You can't.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous. I wrote the book on it.
(Not without seeing stars. And that still doesn't give you your position. How do you calculate a trajectory??? You can't.)
I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous. I wrote the book on it.
My work here is done.I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
A comic book?
My work here is done.I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
My work here is done.I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
This is the first comment that is right on the money.Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.
Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".
I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.
How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money.Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.
Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".
I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.
How sick is that?
Actually, a comic book would actually be a pretty good medium to teach the basics of rendezvous, as you can use lots of illustrations.I wrote the book on it.A comic book?
Stanley Kubrick lived and worked on the moon during Apollo.
My qualifications are that I'm an expert.
I know all about liftoff and rendezvous. I wrote the book on it.
My work here is done.
This is the first comment that is right on the money.Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.
Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".
I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.
How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money.Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.
Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".
I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.
How sick is that?
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum. I got banned for saying the ISS was real. Where were you people then?My work here is done.
So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.
You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.
The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.
(Unless I change my mind.)
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum. I got banned for saying the ISS was real. Where were you people then?My work here is done.
So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.
You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.
The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.
(Unless I change my mind.)
I got banned for saying the ISS was real.
Where were you people then?
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.
as long as they were within maybe 100 miles of the planned landing site and could tell their orientation (such as the sun being in the east), they could make a suitable orbit to begin rendezvous.Right, but it's even simpler than that.
Consider that the Apollo 11 LM and CSM were in a nearly equatorial orbit together before the landing, the surface stay was very brief, and the moon rotates very slowly. This meant the LM's landing site had to be very nearly in the CSM's orbital plane. So no matter where you actually land within this plane, you can get back to the CSM by simply continuing in the same direction you were going when you landed.
Nearly all of the error and uncertainty in the Apollo 11 landing site location was downrange along the track, and it was compensated for during rendezvous by simply adjusting the timing of the various burns, including liftoff. The information from the rendezvous radar that accurately measured the range and range-rate between the CSM and LM. The position of the moon underneath simply didn't matter.
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon."
Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Yes I have. Next?If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry.
My work here is done.
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.
Can you see stars during the day on Earth? Why or why not?
Can you see stars at night on Earth? Why or why not?
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry."NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
NOTE: I say normally because you can actually see Sirius in broad daylight with the unaided eye (I have done so myself) if you know exactly where to look.
such a hilarious concept that I nominated it for a Stundie.
Only in your twisted mind. Read the first line of the signature.Calling me a troll hurts my feelings. But you're stuck on the moon without navigation. I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.Yes I have. Next question.If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope.
That is completely, utterly, demonstrably false.
Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.
Then you are deliberately lying.
Next troll.
My work here is done.I feel sorry for you. I really do. I wish there was some way I could help, but it's a navigation problem.
You could help by not returning to this board after you get banned.
Well, I can't brag about it on cluesforum. I got banned for saying the ISS was real. Where were you people then?My work here is done.
So, exactly as expected, your sole aim is to get banned so you can brag about it at some other forum, as if you were banned because we couldn't deal with your arguments. It is painfully obvious to all and sundry that your reason for being banned, should a ban in fact be given, is simply your resorting to insults and absurdities rather than actually answering any questions sensibly.
You know, just once it would be nice to meet an HB who was actually capable of a discussion that didn't degenerate rapidly into lies, insults and pathetic behaviour.
The most disheartening thing of all about dealing with people like you, alex, is that I always used to think people grew out of such immaturity once they left school. I've seen people aged between 12 and 16 doing this sort of trolling just to wind people up. I thought grown ups didn't behave so idiotically. It is sad to see some do. Sad as much for you that you have so little else to do in your life than stir up trouble on so many messageboards.
THIS IS MY FINAL TRANSMISSION.
Can you see stars during the day on Earth? Why or why not?
Can you see stars at night on Earth? Why or why not?
Actually, you first statement illustrates just how wrong alexsanchez is, because while you cannot normally see stars during the day with the unaided eye, you can with a telescope....
http://sky.velp.info/daystars.php
NOTE: I say normally because you can actually see Sirius in broad daylight with the unaided eye (I have done so myself) if you know exactly where to look.
He could well be telling the truth if he doesn't know he's supposed to take the lens cap off the telescope.Then you are deliberately lying.Clearly you have never looked through a telescope.Yes I have. Next question.
The LM's AOT is only one part of its guidance and navigation system. Its primary purpose is to align with respect to the stars a gyroscopically stabilized platform able to read the Euler angles of the LM's orientation in inertial space. The system also includes three orthogonal accelerometers, a computer with a gravity model, and a ground radio tracking network.
"...the LM had an Alignment Optical Telescope, and could only determine the craft's orientation."
(Not without seeing stars. And that still doesn't give you your position. How do you calculate a trajectory??? You can't.)
Buzz Armstrong said they "couldn't see stars on the moon." Therefore, you can't get a bearing from a star for navigation. Therefore, you are all stuck on the moon. The optics were just a telescope. If you can't see a star with your eyes, you can't see it with a telescope. Nobody went anywhere. End of story. Sorry."NASA must have had a less massive version.
Also, I think NASA must have dropped some navigation aids on the lunar surface before they attempted any manned landings."
Alex, what do you think of people who just parrot anonymous third party speculation?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot.htm
Or it was a really small telescope.Perhaps he just looked into the big end.
The primary method of doing this on Apollo was radio tracking from earth, which could measure to extreme accuracy the range (straight line distance) and range-rate (rate of change in straight line distance) between ground and spacecraft antennas. The earth antenna positions were known very accurately, and so were the trajectories of the spacecraft.
Or it was a really small telescope.
I hard one like that. Several in fact, only mine were completely biodegradable. ;DOr it was a really small telescope.
Ooo, I think I had a plastic one as a child that was literally just a toy--no magnification at all.
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.
Check out Bob's page about the TLI: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm
FYI, the Moon's orbit is inclined 5.1° to the Ecliptic, not the equator.
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon .The inclination isn't as important as the argument of perigee. When the argument of perigee is exactly 180 degrees, apogee occurs on a descending (N->S) equator crossing regardless of the orbital inclination. You vary the argument of perigee by varying the time (and hence the latitude) of TLI, and that moves apogee north or south of the earth's equatorial plane. (Apogee was actually somewhat past the moon, so you adjust to just cross the moon's orbital plane when you get out there.)
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon .The inclination isn't as important as the argument of perigee. When the argument of perigee is exactly 180 degrees, apogee occurs on a descending (N->S) equator crossing regardless of the orbital inclination. You vary the argument of perigee by varying the time (and hence the latitude) of TLI, and that moves apogee north or south of the earth's equatorial plane. (Apogee was actually somewhat past the moon, so you adjust to just cross the moon's orbital plane when you get out there.)
The inclination of the Apollo parking orbit was chosen for two reasons: first, to broaden the daily launch window; and second, to permit transit of the Van Allen belts at a relatively high geomagnetic latitude, well outside the dense part of the inner belt.
I have a question about orbits that may have something to do with TLI and how it is accomplished.
I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon
Firstly, the moon's orbit is inclined to the earth's equator by about 5.1°, and the moon's equator is inclined to its own orbit by 1.5°. This means that, depending upon where the moon is in its orbit, the actual inclination of the moon's equator could be anywhere between 6.6° (5.1° + 1.5°) and 3.6° (5.1° - 1.5°). It is beautifully illustrated in this gif.
(http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o35/smartcooky99/LibrationPhase.gif)
Secondly, AIUI, Apollo 11 launched from Cape Canaveral into an earth orbit of about 32° inclination. This seems high (was it due to the Cape's latitude of 28½° N?).
It remained in that orbit for only 1½ revolutions before TLI.
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° is not going to send the spacecraft anywhere near the moon . I know there are mid course corrections, but correcting a deviation of at least 26° seems a bit extreme. To insert the spacecraft into a near-Lunar equatorial orbit would mean that it would have to approach the moon near the plane of its equator, and I imagine that would need to be set up a considerable distance and time advance.
I feel I am missing something really simply, but what?
I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon.
It seems to me that a TLI burn at an earth orbital inclination of 32° …
Aha, that will probably answer my question. The angle of the ecliptic is 23.4°, so the moon could potentially be ± 5.1 degrees either side of that... 18.3° to 28.5° depending on time of month, so the insertion point for a lunar equatorial orbit could be another 1.5° on top of that... 16.8° to 30°.
I have difficulty in understanding how Apollo 11 could have made an near equatorial orbital insertion at the moon.
To be honest, I’ve never been able to find the orbital elements of the lunar orbits. I’ve only found the altitudes of the orbits, from which I can get semimajor axis and eccentricity. However, none of the documents I’ve looked at has given me inclination, longitude of the ascending node, etc. If anybody has this information or knows where I can find it, please let me know
As to the 32o, there may have been other reasons, but a primary one was to avoid the thickest part of the VAB, which lies mostly between 30o north and south of the equator.
Not sure if this helps, but the apollo image atlas has info here
www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/mapcatalog/apolloindex/
Mostly it's locations of photos, from which you can infer orbits, but some have the orbits drawn precisely.
My own site (see my sig) has google moon kmz files plotting image locations that show the orbital paths.
To be honest, I’ve never been able to find the orbital elements of the lunar orbits. I’ve only found the altitudes of the orbits, from which I can get semimajor axis and eccentricity. However, none of the documents I’ve looked at has given me inclination, longitude of the ascending node, etc. If anybody has this information or knows where I can find it, please let me know.The DRA Table of Space Vehicles gives inclinations, period and eccentricity. The inclinations for Apollo are:
The DRA Table of Space Vehicles gives inclinations, period and eccentricity. The inclinations for Apollo are:
8 - 168 10 - 174.4 11 - 178.75 12 - 164.7 14 - 165.6 15 - 151.28 16 - 169.3 17 - 159.9
It lists the space fixed velocities as 8250 and 5479 ft/sec which is a difference of 2771 ft/sec. "velocity change" is listed as 2917.5 ft/sec. Is this discrepancy because the spacecraft continued to accelerate as it approached perilune?
It lists the space fixed velocities as 8250 and 5479 ft/sec which is a difference of 2771 ft/sec. "velocity change" is listed as 2917.5 ft/sec. Is this discrepancy because the spacecraft continued to accelerate as it approached perilune? Or was was it used for a plane change? The LOI burn ground track shows Apollo 11 was at about a 4° inclination during LOI: (5.9 mb size png) http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/Fig%2020.png
It looks like there is still something else going on here, but since I don't know all the parameters of the before and after orbits, it's impossible to determine. Perhaps I'll figure it all out if I ever get around to doing a complete mission simulation.
I've been running some numbers on this and it looks like there's more to it then what I previously posted. I figure that if the LOI burn were not performed and the spacecraft continued on its trajectory from 86.7 n.mi. altitude to 60.1 n.mi. altitude, it would have picked up only about 27.2 m/s.
im a firm believer that usa landed on the moon. but i wonder why no one has been there ?so there was a race to the moon with russia , but they never continued their program. and no one since
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!To save us all a trip to your local library, perhaps you could scan the photo in question and post it here.
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way. I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy ... You may think that President Kennedy’s assassination, two days later
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
I am confused, ProfessorAlfB.
One the one hand you seem to be saying that the Apollo missions "went ahead" with USSR cooperation, but you also believe that Apollo was faked and are a fan of Jarrah White (going by your posts elsewhere).
Which is it?
Or should I just say, "Hi, Patrick"?
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!To save us all a trip to your local library, perhaps you could scan the photo in question and post it here.
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way. I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
What page is it on? I have a substantial access to this work.
Also, have you heard of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...
In fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
In the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
And before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.
I have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
You made the claim, you find it in Google Books's scan (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false).What page is it on? I have a substantial access to this work.
Also, have you heard of the Apollo Soyuz Test Project?
I don't remember as I borrowed the book several years ago, but if you have "substantial access to this work" then it shoudn't take you long to find it. ;)
I don't remember as I borrowed the book several years ago, but if you have "substantial access to this work" then it shoudn't take you long to find it. ;)
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?
All the public evidence.QuoteThere is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...
No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents. It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature nor appear on White House stationery used for such purposes. It is widely quoted by UFO fanatics seeking to show that the government had knowledge of the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs, and by JFK assassination conspiracy theorists attempting to provide a reason why Kennedy needed to be silenced.
There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations. The question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration. The U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.QuoteIn fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
Yes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there. The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.QuoteIn the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".
That's a 500-page book. Care to be more specific?QuoteAnd before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.
I know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work. He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television. He declined both. He has been avoiding me now for about ten years. His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.QuoteI have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
Yes, most of us own the book. No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!
In fact, there are several such photos. After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space. They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space. Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other. Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!
There are also copyright laws to consider.
Now thats an oxymoron if I've ever heard one...I don't have the book here because it is in my local library, and therefore I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!On the other hand, you were the one who brought up the book as evidence, you should make the effort. Copyright law allows limited "fair use" copying,which should cover this.
There are also copyright laws to consider.
I know that but the photo was apparently taken on an earlier Apollo mission. At least that is what what is stated in the book in question.
I know that but the photo was apparently taken on an earlier Apollo mission. At least that is what what is stated in the book in question.So we have to take the word of an unseen book? Unless you can show the photo in question was published before Apollo-Soyuz, you have no case.
David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record. Therefore his statements cannot be trusted. If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated. Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.Oh, gods, yes.
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?
All the public evidence.
There is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...
No, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.
It is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature
There was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the momorandum. This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax...It cannot be ruled out.Quote
QuoteThe question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.
Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".
QuoteThe U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.
That had always been the case.QuoteIn fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!QuoteYes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there. The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!QuoteIn the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".QuoteThat's a 500-page book. Care to be more specific?
I don't have the book here so no, I can't.QuoteAnd before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.QuoteI know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work. He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television. He declined both. He has been avoiding me now for about ten years. His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"? Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?QuoteI have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.
[quotye]Yes, most of us own the book. No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.Quote...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!QuoteIn fact, there are several such photos. After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space. They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space. Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other. Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.
What makes you think there even was a race to the Moon with Russia?
All the public evidence.
What public evidence? If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.QuoteThere is documented evidence to the contrary...On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271...QuoteNo, this document is part of the discredited, inauthentic Majestic documents.
Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?QuoteIt is simply a typewritten document purporting to be from President Kennedy, but it does not bear his signature
Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspxQuoteThere was a degree of cooperation proposed at the high level between the United States and the Soviet Union, but it was not (yet) for cooperation in space operations.QuoteBut there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the momorandum. This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax...It cannot be ruled out.Quote
QuoteThe question of sovereignty and applicable international law had not yet been settled for the purposes of space exploration.
Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters". No one nation can claim space as it own...Or it would have belonged to the Russians!
QuoteThe U.S. and the USSR, being at the time the only spacefaring nations, met and agreed that certain conventions would hold, such as respecting each nation's spacecraft as sovereign property and agreeing to repatriate any crew or equipment that found its way unexpectedly onto the other's soil.
That had always been the case.QuoteIn fact there is actual photographic evidence that it went ahead...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!QuoteYes, American astronauts were legitimately aboard Soviet Soyuz spacecraft and were copiously photographed there. The existence of such a photograph does not immediately substantiate your claim.
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!QuoteIn the likelyhood that it has now been deleted by NASA, for obvious reasons, the photo can still be found in the book: "Apollo, Dark Moon And The Whistle Blowers".QuoteThat's a 500-page book. Care to be more specific?
I don't have the book here so no, I can't.QuoteAnd before you ask, no, I am not the author or connected financially with the publication in any way.QuoteI know you're not the author because the author is terrified to speak to me about his work. He refused two third-party invitations to debate his findings with me on mainstream television. He declined both. He has been avoiding me now for about ten years. His blatant intellectual dishonesty should give you a clue about how reliable his evidence is.
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"? Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?QuoteI have read the latter book though and seen the photo for myself. The book was freely available to borrow from my local public library.QuoteYes, most of us own the book. No need to amp up the alleged secrecy.Quote...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!QuoteIn fact, there are several such photos. After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space. They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space. Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other. Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record. Therefore his statements cannot be trusted. If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated. Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.Oh, gods, yes.
ProfessorAlfB, David Percy is a liar. There is no way around this. I hate to say this about any human being, but look at this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false).
He claims the the centre cross hair is off-centre, but compare to this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) scan. Not only did he extend the top, but, despite claiming to be showing the 'full area', he deliberately cuts off at the bottom as well!
Another example. This video is about one of Bart Sibrel's videos, but the debunking equally applies to the transparency claim Percy makes.
This is video he would have had access too; this is video he would have known about if, as Percy claims, he made a thorough investigation of Apollo material or even a cursory one.
...At least one of the official Apollo mission photos where a US Astronaut was supposed to be in Space, was clearly taken in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft!In fact, there are several such photos. After the moon missions, the US and USSR finally started to work together in space. They flew a joint mission in 1975 in which an Apollo and a Soyuz spacecraft joined up in space. Astronauts/cosmonauts transferred from one spacecraft to the other. Look up Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.
Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
Yeah, that's the trouble. There is nothing like a coherent story about how Apollo was faked. Some claim it was Kubrick, others say it was Disney. Some say it was filmed at Area 51, others say Hawaii. I even heard a claim it was filmed on the Canary Island of Lanzarote from a yotuber.David Percy has been caught many times blatantly lying about the Apollo record. Therefore his statements cannot be trusted. If you'd be so kind as to provide an exact reference, your exact claim can be investigated. Until then, so long as you make only vague references and recollections, you get only vague rebuttals.Oh, gods, yes.
ProfessorAlfB, David Percy is a liar. There is no way around this. I hate to say this about any human being, but look at this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&dq=dark%20moon&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q&f=false).
He claims the the centre cross hair is off-centre, but compare to this (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) scan. Not only did he extend the top, but, despite claiming to be showing the 'full area', he deliberately cuts off at the bottom as well!
I have not heard that reason for claiming that that particular photo its a fake before...I have heard plenty of others though which still haven't been explained.
It proves he is willing to lie to try and support his claims. Not just be wrong, he is that often enough, but out and out lie. Also, if two 'professional' conspiracy theorists felt forced to lie to try and explain how the Earth was filmed during Trans Lunar Coast if they were in orbit as claimed by Bart Sibrel, David Percy, and other conspiracy theorists, just how was it done? How was it faked?QuoteAnother example. This video is about one of Bart Sibrel's videos, but the debunking equally applies to the transparency claim Percy makes.
This is video he would have had access too; this is video he would have known about if, as Percy claims, he made a thorough investigation of Apollo material or even a cursory one.
Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
I have not heard that reason for claiming that that particular photo its a fake before...I have heard plenty of others though.
Good detective work but it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
I linked to it earlier. In fact, it was in my quote. You had to have seen it since you explicitly refer to "that particular photo" in your reply about Percy's lies.Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?You tell us. The book is available for your perusal on Google Books.
Do you have the link?
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"? Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
What public evidence? If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.
Do have any evidence to show it has been discredited?
Wrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx
But there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the memorandum.
This would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoax
...It cannot be ruled out.
Yes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".
Yes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!
I don't have the book here so no, I can't.
What evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?
Perhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?
Yes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?
I don't have the book here because it is in my local library, and therefore I would still have to make a trip to my local library to get the book!
Do you have the link?
...it doesn't prove that everything else in that documentary is lies.
No...the reason he won't debate Jay, is because Jay would "hand him his hat"...and make him look like the complete fool that he is.
On November 12th 1963 President Kennedy issued a Top Secret National Security Action Memorandum No. 271 with the subject header:"Cooperation with the USSR on Outer Space Matters:". It was sent to the then NASA administator, James Webb, (as well as the US Secretary of State, the US Secretary of Defense, the Director of the CIA, the President’s Science Advisor, and three other agency directors) instructing Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in Joint space and lunar explorations
These proposals should be developed with a view to their possible discussion with the Soviet Union as a direct outcome of my September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs. All proposals or suggestions originating within the Government relating to this general subject will be referred to you for your consideration and evaluation.
What public evidence? If it was so public it shouldn't be hard to find some to back that statement up.QuoteYou're seriously asking for evidence that the Apollo program was styled as a race to beat the Soviets to the Moon? Are you blind?
That does not answer the question.QuoteDo have any evidence to show it has been discredited?QuoteActually yes, but it's not really a going concern. See also below. The only people who still consider the Majestic documents authentic anymore are a very few of the wackier UFO authors. Even many of the authors who once considered them authentic have now changed their minds. Among the factual evidence suggesting forgery are the many errors in the Truman document.
However I should back up and concede that the Majestic reference is something of an inadvertent red herring. There is a version of the Kennedy memo "No. 271" that circulates with the Majestic documents. It bears some resemblance to the actual memo and contains some of the same language, but has been doctored to include references to UFOs and has some mysterious handwritten annotations. It is also heavily redacted, which is a technique used by many UFO enthusiasts to suggest that the redacted portions support their claims.QuoteWrong, it does bear his signature!...See the second page of the memorandum here:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/qVncp893wEmJFplIn1AlHA.aspx
Well no, that's not Kennedy's signature. That's a memo to the file, which is why it has the "S/" annotation rather than a signature. However the memo itself is an authentic document, and the version you link here is not part of the Majestic documents. Therefore if that's the version of the memo to which you refer, then my reference to the Majestic documents was a misdirected rebuttal and I withdraw it.QuoteBut there may have been a degree of cooperation between the US and Soviets on space exploration soon after the date of the memorandum.QuoteNo "may have been" about it. The Apollo-Soyuz program was a direct result of it, as was the exchange of lunar samples between the Soviet and American scientists. "A degree of cooperation" does not substantiate your claim that the Soviets flew missions to the Moon in secret cooperation with NASA. If you argue that a different "degree of cooperation" existed beyond that which the record shows, you bear the burden to prove it.
You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too, that would be very far fetched, but many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.
Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.
The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.
But perhaps their some other far more important reason why they would stay silent?
Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended on Wheat imports from the US to prevent the population from starving and if correct this would be a very good reason to go along with it.
A little research reveals that whilst the USSR did indeed import a great deal of Wheat from the US (400 Bushels or about 30% of the entire average annual US Wheat export total in 1971) this only occured from July-August 1972 onwards, too late to coincide with Apollo 11 in 1969 and only just a few months before the last Apollo mission, Apollo 17 in December 1972.
Does this prove Jarrah is lying? No, because this could have simply been a delayed payment for their long term silence, or it could indeed be because the Soviet population was literally starving.
However, what is more interesting is that the US Government also extended a credit of $750 million to the Soviets for "the purchase of grains over a three-year period", at the same time.
This could imply that that the Wheat imports were perhaps a cover story and that the real reason they kept silent was a purely financial one, or perhaps both might have been part of the same deal.
Whatever the truth of the matter, the Soviets did have at least two good motives for keeping quiet, even if it didn't coincide directly with the start of manned Apollo Moon Missions.QuoteThis would have given the Soviets ample motive to try and hide the fact that the US may have been perpetrating a hoaxQuoteNonsense. The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that. You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.
What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!Quote...It cannot be ruled out.QuoteShifting the burden of proof. You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations. You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.
Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!QuoteYes it had, space has always been governed by the same rules as "international waters".QuoteNo, it had not. It was so governed later as a result of those discussions, but there had been no prior agreement.
Actually there was! It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR. It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty". It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.QuoteYes, and this disproves your earlier claim that there was no US Soviet cooperation on space exploration during the time of the Apollo missions!QuoteYour claim is that the photo in question is not from Apollo-Soyuz but from an earlier Apollo mission, ostensibly one that went to the Moon. Showing that an American astronaut was aboard a Soviet spacecraft at some point in history does not prove that American astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts collaborated on missions to the Moon.
Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.QuoteI don't have the book here so no, I can't.QuoteI skimmed the book and found no such photograph or reference. That doesn't mean it's not there, but it does mean I'm not going to expend any more effort to provide the evidence for your claims. The onus is on you.
Quite right.QuoteWhat evidence have to to prove "His blatant intellectual dishonesty"?QuoteMy entire web site, which has been up for more than 10 years and is very well known and commonly cited by others to third parties whenever Percy's claims are mentioned. Do you really know anything about this debate?
Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA. I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.QuotePerhaps he just doesn't want to talk to you because you may have insulted him at some point during or after your invitations?QuoteDesperate speculation.
But your not denying it!QuoteYes, I know, but doesn't the author of the book in question claim the photo was taken on a earlier Apollo mission?QuoteThat's what he claims. And since his claims regarding the Apollo record have proven so disastrously wrong and misrepresentative in the past, we cannot take his word for it.
Nobody can be right about everything, I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.
QuoteNonsense. The entire civilized world believed the U.S. had beaten the Soviets to the Moon and the Soviets graciously, but begrudgingly, acknowledged that. You're telling me they put forth effort under a supposed secret agreement but got no public credit for it.
What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!
Shifting the burden of proof. You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations. You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.
Actually there was! It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR. It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty". It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.
You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
QuoteShifting the burden of proof. You have no credible evidence that the Soviets participated actively in Apollo operations. You may not assert they did and then sit back lazily and expect everyone else to try to prove you wrong.
Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!
Actually there was! It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR. It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty". It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.
That does not answer the question.
You misunderstood my reasoning...I never claimed that US-Soviet cooperation was to allow the Soviets to land on the Moon too
...many Apollo believers find it impossible to believe that if NASA was pulling a fast one that the Soviets wouldn't immediately blow the whistle on them.
Ignoring the possiblity that their cooperation could suggest that the Soviets might have known full well that it was a hoax but that they were willing to go along with it.
The possibilty cannot simply be ruled out, tenuous evidence as it is.
Jarrah White seems to think the Russians depended...
What they believed and what actually happened are not the same thing!
Yet those that believe in NASA's side of the story often do exacty that!
Actually there was! It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...
Again I did not imply that Russians went to the Moon.
Yes, but lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA.
I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.
But your not denying it!
Nobody can be right about everything...
I will give him the benefit of the dought for now.
Later those came to include the practical problems of manned space flight, such as repatriation of national flight crews and equipment, and "rules of the road" for space operations -- something you don't do and don't need if you cooperate, as those apply only to competitors pursuing independent programs.
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
lets just say I haven't always been so middle of the road in my opinions regarding the validity of the Apollo story as told to us by NASA. I try to keep an open mind so I can see it from both sides.
Jarrah White seems to think...
QuoteActually there was! It was called: "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", and it came into force in October 1967...It was a UN treaty that was signed by the US the UK and the USSR. It is now referred to simply as "The Outer Space Treaty". It proves that there was direct collaboration between the US and the USSR on space exploration before the Apollo missions.
CBA to edit ProfAifB's quotes for him, so I'll just cite that bit.
The fact that there was a treaty on how to behave in outer space is no proof of co-operation on any space related activity during the Apollo missions.
In a nutshell, the treaty simply agrees that no-one owns space, it would be a bad thing to put weapons there, and people should generally be nice to each other.
If you have a specific reference that clearly states that there was co-operation during Apollo, please find it for us.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html)
Just remember folks, just because a snooty British sounding guy in a suit says something, that doesn't make it true.
I blame David Attenborough for this. ;D
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist. Some cursory Googling shows that easily. Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".
If you really want anyone to read your posts, use the right formatting. Take a few minutes to figure it out, it is not to hard.You might want to edit that again so that your replies are outside the quote boxes, ProfessorAlfB
It will make your post a lot easier to read.
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
I've never understood people suggesting the astronauts are moving in slow motion. They clearly aren't.
Flippant, I know, but what is an un-treaty? It's like the disastrous domain name choice of www.expertsexchange.com. Perfectly innocent, but poorly thought out. LOL
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/tos/tos.html)
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.
Anyone seen Life On Earth?
Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist. Some cursory Googling shows that easily. Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."
Or alternatively, learn to use the quote function correctly. It's not hard. All of us gullible Apollo faithful manage it. Why can't you?I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen. If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.
I realize I'm a broken record on this, but every time the hoaxies say, "They use wires" it bugs me. Because they might as well be saying, "They used magic."
"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen. If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.
The "yanked to his feet" wire claim the hoaxies make about one moment (Young, is it?) is a particular sore point. The only thing that comes close to the kind of situation where one person is holding on directly to a support cable (must be one STRONG person, I'd think!) is the wire PULL from the movies; when a bunch of burly stunt people yank on a single cable usually to throw a stuntperson horizontally as well as vertically -- to simulate getting blasted with a shotgun or blown up into the air by a mine or so forth. And this is a single, ballistic act; the stuntman is not under wire control after his flight. You can't just run down the catwalk and haul him up again from where he landed.
If you ignore the specifics of the hoaxie phrasing, it does sound more like theatrical flying, especially the school that uses a direct cable with no mechanical advantage (like VFX prefers). A typical flight gag has the fly man standing on top of a short stepladder, holding on to a thick padded rope. He takes up slack and softly drops off the ladder, a bit like the technique called in rock climbing the "dynamic belay." Again, though, this is essentially a single motion. There is a some control over the speed of descent (often done by running back up the ladder!) but it isn't a continuous effort by the muscles of one person to take the weight of another. It is instead human counterweight and ballistic movements.
The closest analog to always-on, always-taking-the-weight is bungie flying. We've been doing that a lot at the house I work at now -- our usual flight choreographer also works with a group in San Francisco that does elaborate bungie dance shows often in outdoor spaces. The trick for this is you take up slack, then lock in. After that, the actor is in control of their motions; they can make short hops and flights (but they have to be careful to bend their knees on the down!)
I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.
Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.QuoteAnyone seen Life On Earth?
Just kidding! ;D
Actually, according to Jarrah White...
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.
Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist. Some cursory Googling shows that easily. Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
Actually, according to Jarrah White
He makes a compelling case:
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...
Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist. Some cursory Googling shows that easily. Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...
No. If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube. Explain in your own words. We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
Hold on a second. He is not merely being dismissed as a liar, he has proven himself to be an actual liar. There's a difference.Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."
ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
... watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense ;):
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
... unless you know what his videos show...
Don't you think we would find it just a little tiresome to watch that dreck all over again just to satisfy your ego? I have seen them. They are utter crap. I would not wish to inflict them on an amoeba. I do not want to watch that crap again no matter how big your ego is. Is that plain enough?At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...
No. If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube. Explain in your own words. We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.
I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.
Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.
So you admit that he lies? How do determine when he is telling the truth?
That's basically because most HB's know that the ordinary reader has not actually studied the Apollo record.
No, hoax believers are looking for the most uninformed person in the room, hoping to sway their opinion.
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
No, I'm not admitting he lies.
You have already stated that that you think he a liar, so as you seem to know how to tell the difference between lies and truth, it should be easy for you to seperate one from the other when watching his videos.
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?I guess that answers my question. Your approach is to ask others to jump through your hoops to discredit soem YouTube videos. Do you actually have something to say? Do you have a theory for how the missions were faked? I'll bet not!
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...
No. If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube. Explain in your own words. We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.
I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
I haven't said I believe him...
...but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.
At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense ;):
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A98D401BB7B21A4
No, I'm not admitting he lies.You don't have to admit he lies. Regardless of your opinion, he is a proven liar. It matters not a whit what you think.
You have already stated that that you think he a liar, so as you seem to know how to tell the difference between lies and truth, it should be easy for you to seperate one from the other when watching his videos.It is. And?
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?Again, I have watched them. Lies, Damned lies and a complete lack of understanding of statistics. I could watch them yet again, but you would have to pay me.
Ya know...if Jarrah is so sure he is correct, then why can't he come here and debate it?
Sounds like he's the one that's "afraid" of rational discussion on a level "playing field".
Surely your not afraid to watch them in case you realise he might be actually be talking more truth than you can handle?
Why is it that HB's assume that everyone else is as ignorant as they are?Because that's the only way they can justify their own ignorance.
Quote from: Mag40ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
What is it with HBs.....you completely sidestepped my post....in favour of some duff argument by the infamous Jarrah White! Now be a good fellow and respond properly.....as your case is untenable.
Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.
Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states! He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.QuoteOkay, let's try another piece of film. I came across this one....and it is something that single handedly buries your whole argument. Get ready to sidestep another post.
Here is a 10 minute segment from Apollo 15....where they dig a small trench in the lunar regolith -
Here is the same segment adjusted by 2.45 times to show the regolith falling with 9.8m s²
2.45x??? That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information. It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual? And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
Can anyone smell something?
(http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/07/smellysocksgrey.jpg)
2.45x??? That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.
And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
Are you seriously claiming that while use of the quote function is beyond your grasp, you simultaneously can grasp the science of Apollo? Really?Quote from: Mag40ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"
Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!
"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."ATS....ProfessorAlfB:
Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:
What is it with HBs.....you completely sidestepped my post....in favour of some duff argument by the infamous Jarrah White! Now be a good fellow and respond properly.....as your case is untenable.
Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.
Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states! He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.QuoteOkay, let's try another piece of film. I came across this one....and it is something that single handedly buries your whole argument. Get ready to sidestep another post.
Here is a 10 minute segment from Apollo 15....where they dig a small trench in the lunar regolith -
Here is the same segment adjusted by 2.45 times to show the regolith falling with 9.8m s²
2.45x??? That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information. It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual? And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
2.45x??? That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information.
Jarrah White postulates...
Seconded.Jarrah White postulates...
Ok, here's the thing....no one here cares a damn about Jarrah, and what he has to say. If he would like to come here and discuss this, that would be fine....but otherwise, no more Jarrah garbage, ok?
If you have something original that YOU want to say, then say it.
2.45x??? That is way faster than Jarrah shows in his video and therefore its obviously based on fraudulent information. It is clearly a pathetically clumsy attempt to try and prove that Hoax believers are all mistaken fools, yet you post a link to it here as though it were factual? And you have the cheek to call Jarrah a liar!
It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents...
Jarrah White postulates...
Jarrah White postulates that the speed is 66% of Earth....whilst isolating a 3 second clip to reinforce his claim....and you just contradicted your previous claim when it is shown to be rubbish.
Did you even watch his video?...Because that is not what it states! He clearly states the original Apollo footage was slowed down by 33%, which is 66% of its ORIGINAL SPEED.
We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.
We're up to nearly 20 posts. I reckon we're due for a wee bout of "flouncy flouncy" any time now.
The Professor (ha!) stopped showing up on the Who's Online page about 10 minutes ago. Stealth flounce anyone?
numberphile on mathematics, and several others.
As for astronauts on a wire the TV show Fact or Faked Paranormal Files tried it. They said their attempt looked so similar. Yeah, sure. If you ignore his legs kicking out, him going up and forward and then down and back, and not rotating about his center of mass.
Even now, the only way to do it would be practically all CGI from start to finish, something absolutely definitely not possible back then, and even now I would not trust it for photographs, just videoYeah. Even the simplest properties of the lunar landscape are still impossible to convincingly fake today. The lighting alone is a show-stopper (literally). Given the large, scenic areas roamed by the J-mission astronauts, you'd have no choice but to do it outdoors. Do it in the day, and you have to make the sky black. Even if you could key it out without any artifacts, its scattered light would give the trick away. At night, you'd have to artificially light a huge area just as the sun does: with a single source at infinite distance casting single shadows with just the right amount of fuzziness for the sun's 1/2 degree diameter, uniformly illuminating tens of square km, and steadily moving across the sky at 1/2 deg per hour so all the shadows behave properly.
The job just got a whole lot impossible.
Huh? The Prof bailed already? Wuss.
If we're dealing with yet another sock puppet, he'll be back. That's what trolls do.
Considering how difficult it would have been to fake the TV sequences, then, had Apollo been a hoax, I believe there wouldn't have been any TV. It would have been easy just to say that transmitting TV from the moon was beyond our capability at that time, and no one would have questioned it. The whole problem goes away.
That's (part of) a point I've tried to make to HBs before: IF TPTB had set out to fake a lunar mission, I think they would have taken every opportunity to 'simplify the lie'. No TV - technical issues with trying to broadcast a TV signal from deep space; no photographs - the heat and radiation on the moon prevent it (well, maybe a few fogged, poorly focused shots); certainly not seven missions - maybe two or three; voice communication would be intermittent and of poor quality; and so on. Other possibilities are left as an exercise for the student. (Someone more devious than me will have to address the issue of sample collection.
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.I didn't know Grumman did contract work for the Empire. ;D
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm
Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.
Someone else on here posted this up some time ago.
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm
Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.
That's (part of) a point I've tried to make to HBs before: IF TPTB had set out to fake a lunar mission, I think they would have taken every opportunity to 'simplify the lie'. No TV - technical issues with trying to broadcast a TV signal from deep space; no photographs - the heat and radiation on the moon prevent it (well, maybe a few fogged, poorly focused shots); certainly not seven missions - maybe two or three; voice communication would be intermittent and of poor quality; and so on. Other possibilities are left as an exercise for the student. (Someone more devious than me will have to address the issue of sample collection.
I agree completely. I've said in the past that it might have been possible to fake a moon landing(s) but not the moon landing(s). In other words, a fake would have looked much different than the landings we know from history.
And thanks to Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, HBs no longer have the option of thinking Apollo 11 was the only mission. Yeah, we know that Apollo 13 didn't land, but do they just ignore that it means there must have been an Apollo 12 that did?Even better, Apollo 12 also would have fulfilled Kennedy promise. If something wasn't ready for Apollo 11, after the manned Earth orbit tests of Apollo 7 and 9, or the lunar tests of Apollo 8 and 10, why not delay the landing until Apollo 12? Why even try faking things?
The job just got a whole lot impossible.
I didn't realize there were varying degrees of "impossible". Is there such a thing as a little impossible? ;)
OK, I should not have used that little word or two before.No way! "A whole lot impossible" is more better. Perfectly cromulent.
Probably should have said "a lot harder" anyway rather than impossible. :)
Here's a YouTube playlist (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA76C6FA3333BE1D8) with the full seriesSomeone else on here posted this up some time ago.
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATPictures.htm
Edit. too slow, this was for Noldi400 question above. Not a complete answer but very interesting.
Thanks, interesting site. Maybe I need to dig up that Moon Machines episode and watch it again.
I didn't realize there were varying degrees of "impossible". Is there such a thing as a little impossible? ;)Actually, there are, though I wouldn't use the term "little impossible". I'll give an example: Direct sensing of atoms. The building of the first scanning tunneling microscope overcame two seeming "impossibles". First, it was thought that making an atomically sharp tip was impossible. It turned out that you don't need that sharp of a tip, as the tunneling current you want to observe is so tightly dependent on the distance between the tip's atoms and the atom's you are imaging, so in practice, one slightly "protruding" atom on the tip is good enough. The second problem was to eliminate vibrations, which was also thought to be impossible. However, the physicists solved this by using strings, dampers, and heavy masses. The result was awarded the Nobel prize in 1986.
Well, lots of things were impossible until somebody figured out a way to do them.Sounds like a term for a vastly improbable alien species. Impossiblish, mayhap?
Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?
Well, lots of things were impossible until somebody figured out a way to do them.
Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?
Would "impossibiloid" mean something that resembles the impossible but turns out to be not really?
Ah! Douglas Adams, I am in good company then..... (clings to any slim hope of rescue from the faux pax of getting worms wrong)
Might give it a go. I was more Three Musketeers, Treasure Island etc and H G Wells (for some reason no others until a teen) when I was a nipper.
It is a selection of ad-hominem attacks on his opponents...
...which is typical of him. While I'm aware of the content of his videos, I generally ignore them as I would any other childish drivel. He has attempted since 2004 to engage me, and until recently (where he seems to have moved on to other interests) was almost fanatical in his attempts to get my attention.
He contacted me by email a few years ago demanding answers to some questions he had come up with. I told him I would not debate him in private, since that would give him an opportunity to misrepresent what might have been said in private. I told him I would debate him only in public, only in a moderated forum. His vulgar meltdown at Yahoo! in 2004 is still available to be seen, and led to his banning from there -- this is why I insisted on third-party moderation: Jarrah must be babysat in order to keep his debates civil.
Several weeks passed. One day he showed up unannounced at the IMDb forum for Bart Sibrel's film and asked if I considered that an appropriate forum. I agreed, and a debate lasting several weeks ensued. It is still available for anyone to read. He became stumped on the subject of space radiation, and couldn't answer any of my questions. I tend to ask questions that cannot be answered simply by Googling for relevant facts; the answers require a deep understanding of the relevant fields, which Jarrah could not display. One day he wrote a post liberally peppered with the verbal abuse for which he had become so justly infamous. I saw it. I did not report it, but evidently someone did because it was removed a short time later. Jarrah knows exactly why it was removed, because later that day he posted the same post with the offending abuse removed.
This didn't stop him, however, from abandoning the debate and claiming dishonestly that the moderators were censoring him. He used that lie as an excuse not to have to continue the debate. It's too bad that many other readers of the debate saw his vulgar, abusive post and perhaps maybe even saved it. (I didn't have the foresight to do so.) But that is how Jarrah approaches the process. He uses one excuse after another not to be accountable to his critics, while at the same time submitting them to the most vile commentary. Many of his videos make no hoax-related point; they're just "Get Jay at all costs" rants.
I have no use for him. He debates like a child and he is largely under my radar.
You didn't see what was removed. Jay is a high profile target. He operates in the aerospace industry among others. He has both TV appearances and consultancy. What hoaxer would not drool at the chance to take him down, show him up. In their tiny craniums, if they can demonstrate one mistep, then the whole house of cards collapses.
Out of curiosity, I just spent some time perusing your exchanges with him at IMDb and Yahoo.
To quote an old movie the title of which I can't remember just now: "That man* doesn't like you." It really seems personal with him. You must have disparaged his late man-crush at some point.
*The management does not endorse this term with respect to the referenced individual.
You didn't see what was removed. Jay is a high profile target. He operates in the aerospace industry among others. He has both TV appearances and consultancy. What hoaxer would not drool at the chance to take him down, show him up. In their tiny craniums, if they can demonstrate one mistep, then the whole house of cards collapses.
Out of curiosity, I just spent some time perusing your exchanges with him at IMDb and Yahoo.
To quote an old movie the title of which I can't remember just now: "That man* doesn't like you." It really seems personal with him. You must have disparaged his late man-crush at some point.
*The management does not endorse this term with respect to the referenced individual.
It's nutso. I am an engineer. Anyone who can do some basic research can know who I am. I have posted it here and elsewhere. I am not afraid of anything. One of the things that was important to me was, you sign up to a code of ethics, and admit to being beholden to it, and possibly prosecuted if you breach it.
The Hoaxers? not so much. All anonymous, no ethics.
Might give it a go. I was more Three Musketeers, Treasure Island etc and H G Wells (for some reason no others until a teen) when I was a nipper.
My mom had two beautifully illustrated editions of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. They're among the books I rather wish I'd stolen when I went to college.
Aye. Fun looking though.
I also keep an eye out for old science books, pre internet, to see if they have any Apollo and associated stuff in them out of interest. Last purchases were some OS maps from the 60's and some books on Lancaster's and a guide book for US Army first visit to the UK during WWII.
Anyway. I am off topic now. Sorry.
I know that HBs are one and all ignorant of science, but they're also ignorant of quite a lot of history, too, not least the history of science. They should all be required to sit and watch Connections. Every little step leads to who knows how many other little steps, some that you wouldn't even begin to predict. Just because someone once said something was impossible doesn't mean someone won't figure out how to do it anyway.
I find a similar culture around marijuana proponents. Seriously, if it cured cancer, don't you think the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to package the component chemicals responsible into a pill/injection/what have you and sell it?
It's what they did with foxglove, which is the source of digoxin that has been used to treat heart conditions.
Aye. Fun looking though.
I also keep an eye out for old science books, pre internet, to see if they have any Apollo and associated stuff in them out of interest. Last purchases were some OS maps from the 60's and some books on Lancaster's and a guide book for US Army first visit to the UK during WWII.
Anyway. I am off topic now. Sorry.
I have this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Horizon-Edge-Universe-Ariel-Books/dp/0563179546 which is amusingly out of date.
And going further off topic, there are a few copies of Alice in Wonderland illustrated by Salvador Dalí.
No, some hemp advocates argue hemp oil has a curative effect on cancer, not just alleviating the side effects of chemo.
And going further off topic, there are a few copies of Alice in Wonderland illustrated by Salvador Dalí. Sells for something like $12,000.
I find a similar culture around marijuana proponents. Seriously, if it cured cancer, don't you think the big pharmaceutical companies wouldn't find a way to package the component chemicals responsible into a pill/injection/what have you and sell it?I don't see very many people claiming that marijuana cures cancer. What I do see are a lot of people claiming it alleviates anorexia, nausea and vomiting, and various forms of chronic pain. And pharmaceutical companies have in fact identified, packaged and sold at least some of the active ingredients. Marinol (generic: dronabinol) is a pure isomer of the THC found in cannibis. Cesamet (generic: nabilone) is an analog of dronabinol.
I doubt most of those people claim it cures cancer. What it does do well is alleviate much of the suffering from pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy
I doubt most of those people claim it cures cancer. What it does do well is alleviate much of the suffering from pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy
Well, there are rational proponents, and not so rational ones.
Even in the media - I remember an article on a study that showed that people who were high had a lesser rate of car accidents than people who were drunk, although both were well above the rate for sober drivers. The reporter and the people quoted in it, seemed to think that this was reason to declare driving while high virtually harmless, even though the data showed it wasn't.
The argument was, "Yeah, well, it's less bad than driving while drunk, so it's OK." It's like arguing that a strep throat should not be considered an illness at all, because it's less serious than tuberculosis.
On a totally unrelated question, has anyone here ever asked an HB, "What evidence would it take to convince you of the reality of Apollo?" and gotten a reasonable answer?
---- BREAK ----
On a totally unrelated question, has anyone here ever asked an HB, "What evidence would it take to convince you of the reality of Apollo?" and gotten a reasonable answer?The typical hoax believer who is searching for a smoking gun will never give a reasonable (non-goalpost-shifting) answer because there is always a potentially new and exciting smoking gun to be found around the next corner.
---- BREAK ----
Good idea
What would it take to convince me that it was a hoax? Well... a lot. I wouldn't be too curious about the "why" as much as the "how"; I think I'd like to start with that giant bunker where they've kept the hundreds or thousands of people penned up turning out all the documentation that exists about Apollo - including all the books supposedly written by astronauts - along with an equal or greater number of engineers, fact checkers, and continuity people making sure every document is consistent (but not too consistent - must allow for human error to make it believable, yanno) with every other document. Yeah. That'd be a good start.
And HBs notably lack those skills, which is why I agree with the assessment that they probably can't even conceive of the possibility that they might be wrong
What on Earth would make anyone believe that something hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more complex (faking the Apollo programme), could be covered up successfully for 44 years.
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?
Yeah, personally, I don't think a demonstration of "why" the landings were hoaxed would prove a thing. Questions of motive only mean so much. Questions of motive can never really be proven. The landings are a question of fact, and the only rebuttal is to show that the facts are wrong and to show facts that replace them. That's what it would take to show me that the landings were hoaxed. A complete demonstration of all the facts of how the hoax was accomplished.
What would convince me is a Ken Burns documentary.
Not the documentary per se, but the environment in which such a documentary would be made; in which all sorts of material becomes available about the hoax, the process of the hoax, the people who made it possible.
The documentary would be lots and lots of talking heads of people describing the struggles and travails and improvisations and doubts and small victories. And all the moments where it looked like the (hoax) project was going to fail, but due to luck or some stroke of genius or a whole bunch of grueling long just-plain-work, the thing got back on track again.
And there would be technical studies and pictures of the equipment and behind-the-scenes of the filming. And all sorts of surprising esoteric stuff most people would have never thought needed to be part of the hoax, and that took all sorts of clever work to pull off.
And they would be proud, too. A little sad -- especially sad that it hadn't been possible to go to the Moon -- but aware of their place in history and of what they accomplished in fooling the world. And they'd want to talk about it. They wouldn't be frightened, they wouldn't avoid interviews; they'd be pleased to have a chance to finally talk about it, and to get back together again with the men and women who had been involved in that escapade with them.
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?
We're here because we tend to know a lot about Apollo and space exploration. We think it's important and worthwhile, and we're outspoken about it and the role it played in inspiring many of us older kids to become engineers and scientists. Some of us work in aerospace and related technical fields, and we're fond of telling everyone how satisfying it can be.
Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives, they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.
A few of these people (Bart Sibrel comes to mind) have had opportunities to confront those who actually worked on the program, with various results. Most haven't. So maybe they see us as their best available targets of opportunity. And pretending to believe that the program we all regard so highly was actually a criminal hoax is just their way of getting to us.
It's about something called the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, and it postulates that human beings are hard-coded to win arguments rather than to seek the truth. I find this extremely easy to believe.
I would be inclined to bet that most of us here have backgrounds in which we were either taught critical thinking skills formally or had to learn them as an inherent part of our professions.In my case, I was poor at winning arguments through either of the above means. I decided that I had to learn how pick discussions I could contribute to and fights I could win, in order to gain some status. That meant concepts and words. Nothing beats facts and clear thinking processes for that so I chose a profession that required them and thankfully had the underlying abilities that were needed.
Sarcasm? Or approval? Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.
The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!
Its a sad sad day!!!
I apologize for bringing it up.
QuoteSarcasm? Or approval? Tone-of-voice circuit stopped working.
Approval. Marijuana is an emotional and heated subject that has a large social component. It tends to be divisive. It needs to be in its own thread in the proper section of the forum not as a tag on to a hoax thread. Now what were we talking about? 8)
The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!
We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?
Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives, they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.
There are also some people among the HBs that I consider to be, well... dangerously twisted or something - I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with an appropriate phrase.
Once, a few comments into an exchange on YT, a (presumably) female poster accused me (that was the tone of it) of being Jewish. Whether I am or not is irrelevant - once she veered off in that direction, that was basically the only answer she would give to any comment I made. I suppose it had the desired effect; I shut up and went away.
Let me be absolutely clear: I did not consider it an insult in the slightest way, but she was obviously using it in that context, and (I think) somehow equated it with automatically being a disinformation agent. If she was serious, she's one creepy individual.
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.
Second, I prefer to meet each new person on the terms in which they present themselves. I don't want to speculate about which of them is the newest sock. I don't want to try to determine if they're sincere about their beliefs or not. I choose to believe that each new person is a new person until they prove otherwise, and I choose to believe that they aren't a troll until they prove otherwise. I really do believe that it's more useful to behave that way. I think we further the cause of education more that way.
How I go about dealing with HBs has changed over the years as I've gotten more accustom to their behaviors. My approach of late is to be as impersonal and unemotional as possible. Address the argument, not the person. I don't care about the person, what his/her motives are, or whether he/she is a sockpuppet. They can ramble on and insult me and I really don't care because they mean nothing to me. However, if they make factually incorrect statements, or argue that Apollo was a hoax, I'll go on record with the appropriate corrections and counterarguments. When I can, I'll address my posts to the wider audience rather than making it look like I'm engaging the HB one-on-one. The down side to this approach is that I'm often ignored because the HB would rather go after people they can wind up.
First off, I don't consider the latter "trolls." Their behaviour is not intended to provoke an emotional response per se.My point is simply that it's worth considering the hypothesis that at least some of them may not actually doubt the reality of the Apollo program. And when someone states something they don't actually believe in a deliberate attempt to stir up others, that's trolling -- by definition.
In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.
Well...okay, but since we spend a lot of time discussing reasons why these people believe as they do, and why they don't respond to facts and reason, I thought it only reasonable to suggest that maybe they aren't being truthful about their beliefs.
Noldi, that's why Charlie Chaplin wouldn't respond after people who had seen The Great Dictator asked if he was himself Jewish. He said it wasn't the point, and if he denied it (because he wasn't), he made it look like he was accepting that calling someone Jewish was insulting them.
Gillian, don't you enjoy a little meaningless chatter now and then?
Sure. I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it. What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology. This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.I just find it interesting because it gives an incite into the poster, not because of incites into the topic.
Sure. I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it. What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology. This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.I just find it interesting because it gives an incite into the poster, not because of incites into the topic.
There are some assumptions that are hurtful to me that get made a lot when discussing mental illness. The only insight they've ever provided to me is that the stigma lives, and I don't need it discussed here to know that.
But I have yet to read a thread discussing mental illness that doesn't caution people to be careful around "those people."And people who say that are assuming that everyone's mental illness is visible and that "those people" are easy to recognize. That's just not true. Lots of people with mental health issues are high-functioning and/or getting effective treatment and one can easily interact with them and not realize they have a problem.
"Insights" shurely? Incites is something else... ;D
"Surely", surely?
Roger, Over.Who's Roger?
So... how long do you think before the CT folk come out with claims of a test of an orbital superweapon directed on a Russian village? Or have they already started?