ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: smartcooky on December 02, 2024, 04:50:12 AM
-
There seems to be a patterm emegering with najak's posts here
1. He post something he thinks a new, thinks that no-one else has thought of, and thinks is a slam dunk argument for a hoax.
2. Turns out that its not new, but it is old, sometimes very old, and has been repeatedly debunked for the past 40+ years.
3. He gets handed his arse and can't convince anyone of anything.
4. Abandons the argument, and goes on to the next shuny object, which is invariably another lame, stale, repeatedly debunked claim
- Dish falls with gravity (debunked)
- Sand falls too fast (debunked)
- Flag moves without being touched (debunked)
- Saturn V was not capable of launching a 110,000 lb payload (debunked)
- LM was not capable of landing humans on the surface (debunked)
Next few things I expect will be shadows, light sources, no stars and the rest of the usual bollocks we get from hoaxtards!
-
Next few things I expect will be shadows, light sources, no stars and the rest of the usual bollocks we get from hoaxtards!
Wishful thinking. The presentations I've made have been mostly unique in approach, and depth that I go to make the proof.
I believe a number of these presentations stand unrefuted, so far.
1. Lunar Launches Too Fast -- unrefuted.. Awaiting a magic response from JayUtah
2. Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - unrefuted, but am still debating it with OneBigMonkey.
3. Sand Falls to Fast - I believe the argument I'm making is sound with physics.
4. Apollo 12's Dish bouncing in a way that can only be explained by a "pendulum in gravity", along with 4 other sub-points.
I get that Apollogists are like "Ministers of the Faith" - you have a LOT invested here. And if I were to debate the authenticity/authority of the Bible with a Minister - I would never count on him deconverting. Ministry is his life... he's going to believe in the Bible no matter what you show him.
Likewise, I think the same thing may be happening here.
I haven't seen anyone hand me my ass here. I've made some mistakes, which I admit, then I adjust and continue (as we should).
I have more to show, but first, need to wait for these few I've posted already to become officially "resolved" (which I'm guessing will be "agree to disagree", as people like you cast undeserved insults at me).
-
I believe
This is representative of most of your "arguments". You say things like, "it seems...", "I would expect...", "this should...".
You're not actually making any arguments. You're stating a conclusion based on your inferences, suppositions, and ignorance, and expecting that if no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're mistaken that your conclusion stands.
The fact is, however, you are not the gatekeeper of what is true, and nothing needs to be proven to your satisfaction. If you were intellectually honest you would see discrepancies in this minutiae you've found (or more accurately, had fed to you), assume you are mistaken and exert all of your efforts to understanding why. If you fail to find the reason or reasons, you might then seek help from others to help you see what you're missing. Not from the perspective of someone who believes that Apollo is a hoax, but from someone who is trying to understand why the facts of a situation don't match their expectations. And even then, if you and all of the people you get to help you, fail to find the cause of your misunderstanding, none of these minutiae can ever disprove the truth about the Apollo landings. The best they can do is serve as a catalyst to find actual evidence of a fraud.
The money spent on the machines to execute the moon landings is documented in transparent government budget lines. Any money spent on a hoax would, by necessity, not be documented. Where did that money come from? Who paid for it? How did they hide it from people whose jobs are to make sure money can't be misappropriated?
The rockets all launched. If not the moon, where did they go? Obviously the rockets worked, so if your claim is that they went to the moon and didn't land, what actual facts demonstrate the incapability of the LM from successfully landing? If they went to the moon with a lander that could land, then why did they elect not to?
If you believe they stayed in orbit, why was Apollo 13 observed in lunar transit by amateur astronomers?
Most importantly, if this was all staged, there is a location on Earth where it was filmed and many people who worked at that location to film it. Where was the studio, who worked on it, how did they keep all of this a secret, and why has no one revealed what they did?
You've made it quite clear that no evidence will be convincing to you. Anything from NASA is obviously biased, doctored, or otherwise faked, but anything that isn't from NASA is unofficial and without credibility. The burden is on you to prove your claims. You can't just state it's a hoax and then simply dismiss evidence to the contrary and claim victory. If you believe Apollo was faked then prove it. If you can't, then admit it, and humbly ask for help with the things you're having trouble understanding.
PS - any evidence of high intellect that you may or may not actually possess doesn't make you immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is simply a situation in which the person is unaware of what they don't know, so it is possible that if you are very intelligent, your arrogance is blinding you to the giant gaps in your understanding. It is always more likely that an individual is mistaken is their conclusion is at odds with hundreds of thousands of experts and decades of recorded history. While it is possible the individual is correct (see Copernicus or Galileo), one should always assume they are wrong and work with that hypothesis to exhaustion. You have definitely failed to meet that standard. Please do better.
-
Wishful thinking.
Nope
The presentations I've made have been mostly unique in approach
Wrong. They are old claims that have been previously debunked
...and depth that I go to make the proof.
You have offered no proofs of anything so far. All you have done is offer your own perspectives and opinions.... "this" doesn't look right, "that" doesn't sound right etc.
I believe
What you believe is irrelevant, what you can prove is all that matters.
...a number of these presentations stand unrefuted, so far.
1. Lunar Launches Too Fast -- unrefuted.. Awaiting a magic response from JayUtah
First claimed by Ralph Rene over 20 years ago, using the timing marks on VHS video tape. He was too stupid to understand what a poor method this was. There were no VHS tapes in 1969 so what he used to take his measurements had to have been at least second generation (more likely 4th or 5th generation) copies.
You have offered no proof other than your own speculation. Where are your calculations showing the mass, thrust, and specific impulse of the F1 and J2 engines? You need to provide these to show the difference between the launch profile that would be required to put the upper stage into orbit and subsequently to TLI, and the launch profile YOU are claiming for the Saturn V. You haven't shown any of those calculations, I doubt you are even capable of doing them. Well some of us are, but we're not going to to do your homework for you. YOU are making the claims here not us, it YOUR job to prove your claim. So far, you have failed, and failed spectacularly.
2. Flag being pushed TOWARDS the LM - unrefuted, but am still debating it with OneBigMonkey.
First claimed by Bill Kaysing more years ago that I care to remember, and again, debunked multiple times by multiple people on multiple platforms over the course of multiple years. Again, where are your calculations. Where are your frame-by-frame photogrammetric measurements show show fast you claim the flag moved? Did you detect any vertical component of this claimed movement? If you did, would you even understand the imlications of such movement Do you have any understanding that, even in a vacuum, things can move as a result of outside outside influences such as gravity and vibration?
3. Sand Falls to Fast - I believe the argument I'm making is sound with physics.
4. Apollo 12's Dish bouncing in a way that can only be explained by a "pendulum in gravity", along with 4 other sub-points.
Previously claimed by the Blunder from Down Under, I don't know who first claimed this rubbish. You and physics are totally unacquainted. Where are your gravity, mass and acceleration calculations? I'm not seeing any of the necessary mathematical evidence you need to back up this claim. Your arguments pretty much amount to nothing more than what you believe.
I get that Apollogists are like "Ministers of the Faith" - you have a LOT invested here. And if I were to debate the authenticity/authority of the Bible with a Minister - I would never count on him deconverting. Ministry is his life... he's going to believe in the Bible no matter what you show him.
Likewise, I think the same thing may be happening here.
We are not apologists (because facts need no apology) and we have nothing invested (becaseu facts need no investment). We use maths and science to come to our conclusions. Not faith. For someone who claims others are faith-based, you say stuff like "I believe", "I would expect...", "this should..." and "It seems" an awful lot.
I haven't seen anyone hand me my ass here.
Of course you haven't. You don't understand that you are doing a great job of handing yourself your own arse.... all claims and speculation, no substance.
I've made some mistakes, which I admit, then I adjust and continue (as we should).
I have more to show, but first, need to wait for these few I've posted already to become officially "resolved" (which I'm guessing will be "agree to disagree", as people like you cast undeserved insults at me).
Ahh yes... there's the next (predictable) conspiritard tactic, claiming that you have this secret stash of other claims, proofs and evidence that you haven't revealed yet. Who did you learn that from... Bart Sibrel?
-
You're not actually making any arguments. You're stating a conclusion based on your inferences, suppositions, and ignorance, and expecting that if no one can demonstrate to your satisfaction that you're mistaken that your conclusion stands.
I really enjoyed your response. You seem to have a high IQ too. :) Thank you for your responses here. I'll address a few.
The money spent on the machines to execute the moon landings is documented in transparent government budget lines. Any money spent on a hoax would, by necessity, not be documented. Where did that money come from? Who paid for it? How did they hide it from people whose jobs are to make sure money can't be misappropriated?
With high profit NASA contracts, and all accounting done on paper, it would be immensely EASY to siphon the required money for NASAX under the guise of "something else" (maybe QA work).
The rockets all launched. If not the moon, where did they go? Obviously the rockets worked, so if your claim is that they went to the moon and didn't land, what actual facts demonstrate the incapability of the LM from successfully landing? If they went to the moon with a lander that could land, then why did they elect not to?
The Landing maneuvers followed by Ascent to Rendezvous was at least 10x harder than all of the rest of their claims. I believe it was "impossible with the tech at the time" - and have many reasons for believing this. I plan to cover these in online articles "as we go". But being a rookie, I'm only 9 weeks into this mess. My disbelief in Apollo's Landing came from professional experience with 3D free-floating rigid body physics simulations... and the claims of Apollo in 1969 we impossible -- or at least "far more dangerous by a billion times that they'd never risk it -- and then luckily succeed 6x in a row without fatality".
If you believe they stayed in orbit, why was Apollo 13 observed in lunar transit by amateur astronomers?
Do you have a citation? I'm only aware of them seeing "Fuel dumps" - stuff that happened in Earth orbit.
Most importantly, if this was all staged, there is a location on Earth where it was filmed and many people who worked at that location to film it. Where was the studio, who worked on it, how did they keep all of this a secret, and why has no one revealed what they did?
MLH theory puts it in Arizona/NM desert regions where military has large swaths of land and no-fly-zones. Also Canon AF base NM, hangars also has evidence implicating it as the location for filming Apollo 11/12 sets. Others may have ventured into the desert regions inside their high security regions.
You've made it quite clear that no evidence will be convincing to you.
Ditto? I would LOVE to change sides and be proven wrong - and admit it, confess it, etc... The world is in dire need of more people willing to "change sides" when presented with enough compelling evidence.
At this point, for me, it's like showing up to a magic show where the whole audience believes he "cut a woman in half" but do not want to deal with the sheer "impossibility" of it, and any evidence shown to them that indicates "something wasn't right during the presentation" they simply refute, similar to how Christians will always defend the Bible, no matter what - to the end -- and proudly so, while insulting anyone who presents evidence that undermines their faith.
PS - any evidence of high intellect that you may or may not actually possess doesn't make you immune to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It is simply a situation in which the person is unaware of what they don't know, so it is possible that if you are very intelligent, your arrogance is blinding you to the giant gaps in your understanding. It is always more likely that an individual is mistaken is their conclusion is at odds with hundreds of thousands of experts and decades of recorded history. While it is possible the individual is correct (see Copernicus or Galileo), one should always assume they are wrong and work with that hypothesis to exhaustion. You have definitely failed to meet that standard. Please do better.
This is why I'm HERE, instead of hanging out in MLH echo chambers. I believe I'm fairly good at realizing "where I don't know enough" to say "I don't know enough to have a reliable/legitimate opinion". For example, Politics -- most people think they "know what's best for the nation" -- I however, conclude - "this is too complex to REALLY know what is best"... and although I have opinions of what "seems best to me" - I always say "I really don't have a clue, as it's too complex/muddy and too many moving parts and concepts."
As for Apollo -- I'm sticking to VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS... not within the realm of Dunning Kruger. Newtonian Physics, for example. Pendulum physics.
In which of my claims do you think I've journeyed forth into the Dunning-Kruger effect? (where I'm making claims that are beyond my grasp of physics, etc)
And if a medical doctor shows up to the magic show, with enough knowledge to know "cutting a woman in half isn't possible" - is this Dunning Kruger? Could he be wrong? Sure -- but would want to see a LOT more evidence. Is he required to "know how the magician pulled off the trick" for that doctor to remain firm in his beliefs? Nope.
PS: Thank you for engaging. I'd like it if you addressed some of these threads I've started to provide me with a viable/legitimate Apollogist explanation. Give it your best shot, please.
-
Ahh yes... there's the next (predictable) conspiritard tactic, claiming that you have this secret stash of other claims, proofs and evidence that you haven't revealed yet. Who did you learn that from... Bart Sibrel?
I've been (reasonably) commanded by @LunarOrbit to not post any more of these, until we resolve the current ones. I do have many more... and will get to them as I am permitted to do so. I believe @LunarOrbit's mandate is reasonable. But as such, I'm aiming to "close some of these down" so that I can start the new ones. Some have become circular... and so need to wind down.
In this context, the topics are splintered -- so I won't debate specifics here with you... because that would be too splintered and non-productive.
I invite you to offer your refutations in the other threads, where they are in scope.
-
Ahh yes... there's the next (predictable) conspiritard tactic, claiming that you have this secret stash of other claims, proofs and evidence that you haven't revealed yet. Who did you learn that from... Bart Sibrel?
I've been (reasonably) commanded by @LunarOrbit to not post any more of these, until we resolve the current ones. I do have many more... and will get to them as I am permitted to do so. I believe @LunarOrbit's mandate is reasonable. But as such, I'm aiming to "close some of these down" so that I can start the new ones. Some have become circular... and so need to wind down.
In this context, the topics are splintered -- so I won't debate specifics here with you... because that would be too splintered and non-productive.
I invite you to offer your refutations in the other threads, where they are in scope.
The chances thar you will close some(any) down is slim and none.
-
With high profit NASA contracts, and all accounting done on paper, it would be immensely EASY to siphon the required money for NASAX under the guise of "something else" (maybe QA work).
That is easy to claim, but I assume you'll be following that up with some data or evidence to support it. Currently, the only evidence shows money that is accounted for in Apollo program expenditures.
The Landing maneuvers followed by Ascent to Rendezvous was at least 10x harder than all of the rest of their claims. I believe it was "impossible with the tech at the time" - and have many reasons for believing this. I plan to cover these in online articles "as we go". But being a rookie, I'm only 9 weeks into this mess. My disbelief in Apollo's Landing came from professional experience with 3D free-floating rigid body physics simulations... and the claims of Apollo in 1969 we impossible -- or at least "far more dangerous by a billion times that they'd never risk it -- and then luckily succeed 6x in a row without fatality".
What you believe isn't relevant because you haven't done nearly enough research to make a viable conclusion. All you know right now is that you don't see how it could be done. Until you have thoroughly examined everything, and learned everything you need to understand how it was accomplished, you aren't qualified to conclude anything. And nobody has the burden of proving it to you. It is your job to provide evidence of a fraud, not demand that people to prove to you it wasn't.
Do you have a citation? I'm only aware of them seeing "Fuel dumps" - stuff that happened in Earth orbit.
https://www.satobs.org/seesat/Feb-1998/0214.html
https://pauldmaley.com/telescopic-tracking-of-apollo-lunar-missions/ (scroll to the Apollo 13 heading)
If you were prepared to present a case for a faked Apollo program you should already have found this information, by the way.
MLH theory puts it in Arizona/NM desert regions where military has large swaths of land and no-fly-zones. Also Canon AF base NM, hangars also has evidence implicating it as the location for filming Apollo 11/12 sets. Others may have ventured into the desert regions inside their high security regions.
Speculation isn't relevant. If there is evidence, share it. What people "may have" done is irrelevant noise.
Ditto? I would LOVE to change sides and be proven wrong - and admit it, confess it, etc... The world is in dire need of more people willing to "change sides" when presented with enough compelling evidence.
Not ditto. There is literally zero evidence of a hoax. In a bizarre way, I may be the most qualified person here to tell you that. I was once skeptical of the Apollo program because of people like you, presenting their conclusion with what seemed like damning innuendo and photographic and logically presented evidence. But unlike you, instead of accepting their presentation I looked at every piece of evidence I could find, learned a great deal about a number of subjects that exceeded my formal education, and discovered that the hoax claims are unsupportable, and the Apollo claims are backed by a wealth of data, science, and observation.
If there were ever to be evidence that conclusively shows that Apollo was faked, I would be shocked, but I would accept the facts as they stand. But no one, you included, has shown any actual evidence. It is mountains of minutiae you don't understand, packaged to look like some kind of smoking gun. It's a slick package to people who don't have critical thinking skills, but it doesn't hold up to even a tiny amount of scrutiny.
This is why I'm HERE, instead of hanging out in MLH echo chambers. I believe I'm fairly good at realizing "where I don't know enough" to say "I don't know enough to have a reliable/legitimate opinion". For example, Politics -- most people think they "know what's best for the nation" -- I however, conclude - "this is too complex to REALLY know what is best"... and although I have opinions of what "seems best to me" - I always say "I really don't have a clue, as it's too complex/muddy and too many moving parts and concepts."
As for Apollo -- I'm sticking to VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS... not within the realm of Dunning Kruger. Newtonian Physics, for example. Pendulum physics.
Your poor application of physics and the conclusions to which you've leaped without properly vetting them is well within the realm of Dunning-Kruger. If you were intellectually honest you wouldn't be presenting any of this as evidence of a faked Apollo program. You would be presenting it as examples of things you don't understand and that you're looking for assistance to see what you're missing.
In which of my claims do you think I've journeyed forth into the Dunning-Kruger effect? (where I'm making claims that are beyond my grasp of physics, etc)
Every single one of them.
PS: Thank you for engaging. I'd like it if you addressed some of these threads I've started to provide me with a viable/legitimate Apollogist explanation. Give it your best shot, please.
No. While I respect the people who are attempting to engage with you, I will not allow you to hijack the paradigm. Apollo is a matter of historical record, backed by mountains upon mountains of evidence. If you want to know the truth of it then start digging through those mountains in earnest. If, after you have done all of your homework, you are still unconvinced, then you are free to present your best shot, but it will need to be absolutely monumental in scope and thorough in its presentation of unassailable evidence to be taken at all seriously. I will engage with specifics when you have the courtesy to present an argument that is worthy of being addressed. Nothing you've provided so far gets anywhere near that threshold.
-
Nothing you've provided so far gets anywhere near that threshold.
If you were initially fooled by the "shadows, stars, etc" arguments -- this is typical. I find those cringeworthy arguments.. awful.
I'd be interested to simply hear your summation of how you would debunk the few posts I've made, declaring something to be un-refutable.
Like the others, I don't think you have legitimate refutations for my claims.
Question: Do you believe Epstein was killed or committed suicide? I mean it's recorded as a suicide, so must be a suicide. And since we can't prove it was murder -- then we must assume it was suicide just as they told us it was.
-
Question: Do you believe Epstein was killed or committed suicide? I mean it's recorded as a suicide, so must be a suicide. And since we can't prove it was murder -- then we must assume it was suicide just as they told us it was.
That is way off topic and irrelevant. Stick to the topic, answer the questions directed at you, stop brushing off responses from the other members...or leave.
-
That is way off topic and irrelevant. Stick to the topic, answer the questions directed at you, stop brushing off responses from the other members...or leave.
This is argument by analogy. I was being told that the way to deal with an elaborate hoax from 50 years ago is to prove that EVERYTHING they've ever done/said is false. Otherwise, my only smart/reasonable choice is to believe.
Epstein is similar to NASA in that we have NO WAY TO PROVE HE WAS MURDERED... but also no way to prove it either way. But the surrounding/circumstantial evidence indicates that we should at least be highly suspicious that this was a murder, not a suicide.
My point is that circumstantial evidence, along with means/motive, for me, is more than enough to have lasting suspicions.
And so with Apollo, what convinces me is a similar line of circumstantial evidence, coupled with a string of Impossibilities. For starters, I'm focused on the Impossibilities.
Even the Mighty Apollo Cannot Break Simple Physics.
-
With high profit NASA contracts, and all accounting done on paper, it would be immensely EASY to siphon the required money for NASAX under the guise of "something else" (maybe QA work).
That is easy to claim, but I assume you'll be following that up with some data or evidence to support it. Currently, the only evidence shows money that is accounted for in Apollo program expenditures.
The Landing maneuvers followed by Ascent to Rendezvous was at least 10x harder than all of the rest of their claims. I believe it was "impossible with the tech at the time" - and have many reasons for believing this. I plan to cover these in online articles "as we go". But being a rookie, I'm only 9 weeks into this mess. My disbelief in Apollo's Landing came from professional experience with 3D free-floating rigid body physics simulations... and the claims of Apollo in 1969 we impossible -- or at least "far more dangerous by a billion times that they'd never risk it -- and then luckily succeed 6x in a row without fatality".
What you believe isn't relevant because you haven't done nearly enough research to make a viable conclusion. All you know right now is that you don't see how it could be done. Until you have thoroughly examined everything, and learned everything you need to understand how it was accomplished, you aren't qualified to conclude anything. And nobody has the burden of proving it to you. It is your job to provide evidence of a fraud, not demand that people to prove to you it wasn't.
Do you have a citation? I'm only aware of them seeing "Fuel dumps" - stuff that happened in Earth orbit.
https://www.satobs.org/seesat/Feb-1998/0214.html
https://pauldmaley.com/telescopic-tracking-of-apollo-lunar-missions/ (scroll to the Apollo 13 heading)
If you were prepared to present a case for a faked Apollo program you should already have found this information, by the way.
MLH theory puts it in Arizona/NM desert regions where military has large swaths of land and no-fly-zones. Also Canon AF base NM, hangars also has evidence implicating it as the location for filming Apollo 11/12 sets. Others may have ventured into the desert regions inside their high security regions.
Speculation isn't relevant. If there is evidence, share it. What people "may have" done is irrelevant noise.
Ditto? I would LOVE to change sides and be proven wrong - and admit it, confess it, etc... The world is in dire need of more people willing to "change sides" when presented with enough compelling evidence.
Not ditto. There is literally zero evidence of a hoax. In a bizarre way, I may be the most qualified person here to tell you that. I was once skeptical of the Apollo program because of people like you, presenting their conclusion with what seemed like damning innuendo and photographic and logically presented evidence. But unlike you, instead of accepting their presentation I looked at every piece of evidence I could find, learned a great deal about a number of subjects that exceeded my formal education, and discovered that the hoax claims are unsupportable, and the Apollo claims are backed by a wealth of data, science, and observation.
If there were ever to be evidence that conclusively shows that Apollo was faked, I would be shocked, but I would accept the facts as they stand. But no one, you included, has shown any actual evidence. It is mountains of minutiae you don't understand, packaged to look like some kind of smoking gun. It's a slick package to people who don't have critical thinking skills, but it doesn't hold up to even a tiny amount of scrutiny.
This is why I'm HERE, instead of hanging out in MLH echo chambers. I believe I'm fairly good at realizing "where I don't know enough" to say "I don't know enough to have a reliable/legitimate opinion". For example, Politics -- most people think they "know what's best for the nation" -- I however, conclude - "this is too complex to REALLY know what is best"... and although I have opinions of what "seems best to me" - I always say "I really don't have a clue, as it's too complex/muddy and too many moving parts and concepts."
As for Apollo -- I'm sticking to VERY SIMPLE CONCEPTS... not within the realm of Dunning Kruger. Newtonian Physics, for example. Pendulum physics.
Your poor application of physics and the conclusions to which you've leaped without properly vetting them is well within the realm of Dunning-Kruger. If you were intellectually honest you wouldn't be presenting any of this as evidence of a faked Apollo program. You would be presenting it as examples of things you don't understand and that you're looking for assistance to see what you're missing.
In which of my claims do you think I've journeyed forth into the Dunning-Kruger effect? (where I'm making claims that are beyond my grasp of physics, etc)
Every single one of them.
PS: Thank you for engaging. I'd like it if you addressed some of these threads I've started to provide me with a viable/legitimate Apollogist explanation. Give it your best shot, please.
No. While I respect the people who are attempting to engage with you, I will not allow you to hijack the paradigm. Apollo is a matter of historical record, backed by mountains upon mountains of evidence. If you want to know the truth of it then start digging through those mountains in earnest. If, after you have done all of your homework, you are still unconvinced, then you are free to present your best shot, but it will need to be absolutely monumental in scope and thorough in its presentation of unassailable evidence to be taken at all seriously. I will engage with specifics when you have the courtesy to present an argument that is worthy of being addressed. Nothing you've provided so far gets anywhere near that threshold.
So, no evidence yet? Just 'things don't look right to my totally unqualified eye'. No calculations showing the mass, thrust, and specific impulse of the F1 and J2 engines? No frame-by-frame photogrammetric measurements show show fast you claim the flag moved? I thought not!
-
What you believe isn't relevant because you haven't done nearly enough research to make a viable conclusion. All you know right now is that you don't see how it could be done. Until you have thoroughly examined everything, and learned everything you need to understand how it was accomplished, you aren't qualified to conclude anything. And nobody has the burden of proving it to you. It is your job to provide evidence of a fraud, not demand that people to prove to you it wasn't.
When I prove "a Claim made by NASA was IMPOSSIBLE" - this is evidence of fraud. If you catch someone in a Lie, you now have the right to suspect their WHOLE STORY. Integrity broken.
If a doctor can prove that it's not possible to "cut a woman in half, then just push her back together and she lives" -- this should be evidence enough that the magic was just an illusion, not real. EVEN if this doctor has NO IDEA how the magician pulled off this illusion.
When NASA says "here's our footage of the big event" - -and we find things within this footage that are IMPOSSIBLE -- this indicates that we caught them in a Lie. It indicates "Fake Footage".
It doesn't matter "how many people have already accepted the Lie" -- this doesn't make it any more true.
From the GET GO - EVERYONE BELIEVED IT... and WANTED TO BELIEVE IT.... like a great Religion where there is no condemnation -- only the good stuff -- "Wow, Mankind is wonderful!"... win, win, win. No motivation to doubt it... and IF YOU DO DOUBT IT -- you'll be laughed at, mocked, outcast, and discredited... as were all of those who tried. AND STILL -- this continues. There's only cost in doing MLH work... currently.
So I focus on "Evidence that it was a Hoax" == stuff that Apollo said is real, but demonstrates IMPOSSIBLE feats, or critical mess-ups.
I have a big pile of this to go through... as soon as LunarOrbit gives me the Green Light.
-
I'd be interested to simply hear your summation of how you would debunk the few posts I've made, declaring something to be un-refutable.
Again, this isn't how discussion and debate work. Your declaration that something is "un-refutable" (sic) doesn't make it so. It's no one's job to debunk anything that you present based on your own ignorance. I respect that some people are making an effort to show you your errors, but I'm holding you to a higher standard. It is your burden to debunk Apollo, not mine to debunk your spurious claims. You will need to become much more versed in the material, and much more educated about subject matter that you aren't currently familiar with to make a valid attempt at this. Most likely, if you accept that challenge, over the course of your research you will simply discover what the rest of us already know, and that's a great outcome as well.
Like the others, I don't think you have legitimate refutations for my claims.
The legitimate refutation is that Apollo is a matter of historical record with mountains upon mountains of data, science, and observation supporting it. Your claims aren't legitimate until they are supported by a similar quantity and caliber of evidence. You have a great deal of work to do; you should get started.
-
When I prove "a Claim made by NASA was IMPOSSIBLE" - this is evidence of fraud. If you catch someone in a Lie, you now have the right to suspect their WHOLE STORY. Integrity broken.
There are two primary issues with this line of thought. First, you haven't proven anything to be impossible. You have stated without evidence that certain bits of minutiae don't appear as you would expect them to and hypothesized that these indicate a hoax. The more likely conclusion is that you've made a mistake in your expectations, but you've jumped straight over that to your preferred conclusion, which is terrible science.
Second, it's not enough to find a single small element, or even a series of them that you believe are impossible to prove the hoax. You would then need to disprove all of the evidence that supports Apollo. For example, I haven't seen you address the pendulum video that was shared with you from Apollo 14. It clearly shows physical behavior that must have occurred in lunar gravity. Hours upon hours of things like this also need to "debunked" if a hoax hypothesis is to have any credibility.
You don't know enough to conclude that Apollo was faked, let alone try to construct a persuasive argument to that effect.
-
If a doctor can prove that it's not possible to "cut a woman in half, then just push her back together and she lives" -- this should be evidence enough that the magic was just an illusion, not real. EVEN if this doctor has NO IDEA how the magician pulled off this illusion.
I forgot to include this earlier. You really need to stop with this analogy, as it's biased on its basic premise and doesn't accurately reflect the situation.
A more accurate example might be someone seeing a video of a 4 hour heart transplant surgery and saying it's fake because humans wouldn't be able to survive having their heart removed. They might claim that the fakery is obvious using minutiae that doesn't appear right to them, like you can see one lung has three lobes and the other has only two. The people in the props department clearly didn't coordinate on what lungs were supposed to look like. The skeptic in this scenario would ignore the fact that there is a living patient with a new heart, a surgeon who performed the surgery, all of the medical staff and patient family members who can corroborate their experience with the process from start to finish, and an insurance company that paid a great deal of money for the service. This skeptic is ignorant of advanced surgical procedures and even simple things like basic human anatomy and is unwilling to consider that their ignorance is the issue with their expectations, not the reality of the surgery.
-
I forgot to include this earlier. You really need to stop with this analogy, as it's biased on its basic premise and doesn't accurately reflect the situation.
A more accurate example might be someone seeing a video of a 4 hour heart transplant surgery and saying it's fake because....
In this case, we're watching it ON TV, not in person, and for hours all looks real. But then the doctor asks for the new heart, and it floats to him like he's a Jedi with the Force. He's Breaking Simple Physics here. We just entered into a Fake Reality. Suddenly, you should start to wonder about the authenticity of the whole operation.
Then he Breaks Physics another few times. When he hands the heart to the nurse, she fumbles it, and instead of falling, it floats.... but just for 1 second. And a few more times, stuff like this happens...
If the mistakes I'm pointing out were of complex nature -- then your analogy might hold. But these mess ups were SIMPLISTIC. UNBREAKABLE. UNEXPLAINABLE.
Now add the rest of NASA's context:
1. It's tied to Dishonest Politics, Cold War, and Fear of Communism and National Security.
2. Failure is not an option. To admit failure would be a huge hit against Citizen trust of our government, as they wasted so many billions. All future budgets cancelled; NASA shut down; Mission Failed.
3. Headed up by Military men in nearly all leadership positions, astronauts, Control Room leadership, project management.
4. Thomas Baron, Whistleblower, killed 6 days after testifying to the truth about NASA's Quality/procedures - "what is ACTUALLY happening at ground floor"- -- names a dozen others who can also testify. Gives them a 500 page report... which goes MISSING after his "tragic accident" and no more witnesses come forth... hmmm....
5. 50 years pass, and we NEVER do anything like this again...
6. They destroy much of the evidence, and data. (Source Tapes and telemetry data -- all gone. LM design/test docs - mostly all gone.)
And I'm just supposed to "believe this surgery was real", and will be ridiculed for concluding "nope, I don't think this was real -- they BROKE PHYSICS many times!"
So my only onus here is to demonstrate the "Breaking of Simple Physics". My biggest hindrance is that MOST Americans don't have a great understanding of physics or even the simple Newtonian equations that demonstrate the fakery.
-
I forgot to include this earlier. You really need to stop with this analogy, as it's biased on its basic premise and doesn't accurately reflect the situation.
A more accurate example might be someone seeing a video of a 4 hour heart transplant surgery and saying it's fake because....
In this case, we're watching it ON TV, not in person, and for hours all looks real. But then the doctor asks for the new heart, and it floats to him like he's a Jedi with the Force. He's Breaking Simple Physics here. We just entered into a Fake Reality. Suddenly, you should start to wonder about the authenticity of the whole operation.
Then he Breaks Physics another few times. When he hands the heart to the nurse, she fumbles it, and instead of falling, it floats.... but just for 1 second. And a few more times, stuff like this happens...
If the mistakes I'm pointing out were of complex nature -- then your analogy might hold. But these mess ups were SIMPLISTIC. UNBREAKABLE. UNEXPLAINABLE.
Now add the rest of NASA's context:
1. It's tied to Dishonest Politics, Cold War, and Fear of Communism and National Security.
2. Failure is not an option. To admit failure would be a huge hit against Citizen trust of our government, as they wasted so many billions. All future budgets cancelled; NASA shut down; Mission Failed.
3. Headed up by Military men in nearly all leadership positions, astronauts, Control Room leadership, project management.
4. Thomas Baron, Whistleblower, killed 6 days after testifying to the truth about NASA's Quality/procedures - "what is ACTUALLY happening at ground floor"- -- names a dozen others who can also testify. Gives them a 500 page report... which goes MISSING after his "tragic accident" and no more witnesses come forth... hmmm....
5. 50 years pass, and we NEVER do anything like this again...
6. They destroy much of the evidence, and data. (Source Tapes and telemetry data -- all gone. LM design/test docs - mostly all gone.)
And I'm just supposed to "believe this surgery was real", and will be ridiculed for concluding "nope, I don't think this was real -- they BROKE PHYSICS many times!"
So my only onus here is to demonstrate the "Breaking of Simple Physics". My biggest hindrance is that MOST Americans don't have a great understanding of physics or even the simple Newtonian equations that demonstrate the fakery.
You haven't proved anything.
-
So my only onus here is to demonstrate the "Breaking of Simple Physics". My biggest hindrance is that MOST Americans don't have a great understanding of physics or even the simple Newtonian equations that demonstrate the fakery.
Physics wasn't broken. The problem is your understanding is flawed and you're too arrogant to even accept the possibility that you're wrong.
You don't even recognize the sheer amount of hubris it takes for someone like you, with absolutely no relevant training or education, to conclude that you are part of a tiny group of people with the intellect and insight to discern what millions of more educated people than you have failed to do, despite having familiarity with much more content than you.
The obvious answer for anyone with actual intellectual honesty and integrity, especially with the bits of minutiae that you're floating as evidence, is that if something doesn't look right then they must be missing something.
For people like you, who obviously believe that you know everything you need to know and are absolutely infallible, if something doesn't look right to you, then it is evidence of the largest, most expensive hoax ever perpetrated and no amount of actual evidence can convince you that it doesn't look right because your expectation is wrong.
-
That is way off topic and irrelevant. Stick to the topic, answer the questions directed at you, stop brushing off responses from the other members...or leave.
This is argument by analogy.
It is an attempt to distract and evade by sending people down a different path that is off topic.
-
Thought I'd poke my head in here and saw that there is some activity. Thought it might be fun. But frankly my tolerance for this has hit rock bottom lately so I'll just say how tedious it is to see the same hoary old s**t brought up again by someone who thinks that in all this time they're the ones with the insight to uncover the hoax.
For the love of Christ, it's been 55 f***ing years since Apollo 11, and over 20 even since I started looking at this stuff. The material being 'analysed' has been seen by literally millions of people at all levels of age, education and experience, and these tired old arguments based on it looking a bit off to someone with no actual expertise in the field are now so boring I can't even be bothered to debunk them for the umpteenth time.
-
Just as @ApolloEnthusiast shared his "skepticism story" - he questioned, and then researched - and what did Google lead him to?? All of the bad/debunked MLH arguments -- which at first might sound compelling, but once you dig into them a bit - they fall apart.... and you end up with another Apollogist, for the wrong reasons... Based on the Strawman technique, only there's no one around telling them the good arguments. THIS is the mechanism by which Apollo maintains "the faith" for the vast majority. It is dishonest, and skewed.
This is from a different thread, but I put it here so as not to interrupt Jay's attempt at educating you.
Please refrain from misrepresenting my lived experience. My research was not limited to Google, and nowhere did I indicate that it was. You also seem to believe that my conclusion that Apollo was real is based on faults in the hoax argument and not in the overwhelming affirmative evidence for all of the Moon landings. Once again, you project your desired result onto reality and ignore any possibility that the world doesn't work the way you think it works. But it is offensive to me that the months I spent doing actual research on this is reduced by you to "Google", and the conclusions I reached based on rigorous scrutiny of all the material I consumed is reduced by you to some awkward faith analogy based on disproving strawmen. You are really very insufferable.
-
For people like you, ... if something doesn't look right to you, then it is evidence of the largest, most expensive hoax ever perpetrated and no amount of actual evidence can convince you that it doesn't look right because your expectation is wrong.
On a related note, the argument that all someone has to do is find one "impossible" thing and the whole house of cards falls to the ground is nonsensical. Yes, obviously we can often point to specific ways in which a claim of impossibility is flawed. And yes, most often that reason is that the claimant's expectations are poorly informed or simplistic. But we don't need to accept the burden to determine conclusively why the claim of impossibility is wrong because the argument is flawed at a more fundamental level.
I once received a lot of mockery because I went on record saying that even if Neil Armstrong himself claimed it was a hoax, I wouldn't necessary accept that. From one perspective that sounds like I am ideologically entrenched. But that's not the basis for my conclusion. The authenticity of the Apollo missions does not rest principally on Armstrong's testimony and cannot be entirely undone by it. The question of authenticity rests on a vast trove of testable evidence that Armstrong has nothing to do with and still must be explained. At best, a confession from some highly placed figure merely shifts the investigation. It doesn't terminate it. If credible explanations can't be provided for all the rest of the evidence, it becomes more tenable then to question the confession.
Back in the day, I thought a good name for the mistaken notion that where one point goes, there must also go the whole question would be the "Bellwether Fallacy." Turns out someone already called it that. https://macdonaldcasefacts.com/html/bellwether.html The key element is that we are most rational when we respect the preponderance of evidence with the simplest explanation. In any complex question of history involving many evidentiary moving parts, there simply is not any one thing that by itself determines the whole matter. The attempt to make one so is the ploy of someone who wants to make his proof easier to obtain by ignoring inconvenient complexity.
So when a conspiracy theorist demands that the one thing he has proved to be impossible must somehow decide the whole question, and that all the other evidence must just somehow work itself out in the wash, we are not compelled to accept a higher standard of proof to affirmatively, specifically, and incontrovertibly refute that claim. If the structure of the argument accepts a premise that unexplained observations simply vanish in a puff of logic with no further consideration, then parsimony demands that such a blind dismissal apply to the least amount of evidence—namely, the one outlier.
So, "I've proven by basic physics that Apollo can't have happened, and it doesn't matter that I can't show alternative evidence for how we got the Moon rocks or how private citizens picked up the radio signals," can be validly reversed to say, "It doesn't matter that we can't determine why your one alleged bellwether event seems anomalous, when we have an unrefuted preponderance of evidence in favor." Any study of history deals with a messy body of evidence. When we stoop to speculation to explain any part of it, the theory resting on that speculation stands best when the speculation is least.
Again, none of this undercuts that we sometimes can determine that the bellwether was poorly supported. And where possible we should endeavor to do so, since reducing the overall amount of speculation in a theory of history is desirable. But the notion that an unrefuted bellwether allows you to conclude an extraordinary default hypothesis against a preponderance of evidence is simply irrational.
-
Jay, I wish I had your knowledge, experience, energy, and patience to deal with people like Najak. I had the patience and energy years ago, but it is definitely waning. Just know that I appreciate what you do, and the other members too, of course.
-
There are two primary issues with this line of thought. First, you haven't proven anything to be impossible. You have stated without evidence that certain bits of minutiae don't appear as you would expect them...
Correct, sorta. When I'm watching that "heart transplant surgery on TV" being told it's real, and it looks real enough, until the Dr. uses Jedi-like forces to make the scalpel float into his hand -- I am calling this proof of fakery.
The things I'm saying are IMPOSSIBLE -- are IMPOSSIBLE, without the introduction of supernatural forces - per the people telling this is "all real". There is no VIABLE COMPLETE hypothesis which explains the issues I am finding, no even a "guess"... The types of physics that are being broken are on the level of "Jedi Force"... magic forces operating in a vacuum. I'm going to call these Impossible on the premise that "Jedi Magic Forces" don't really exist in our scientific physical world.
Please show me one VIABLE COMPLETE hypothesis that I am ignoring, and I'll change my personal conclusion.
-
@LunarOrbit, your account of what happened here isn't accurate, IMO. Not even close.
I'd like to see some "neutral eyes" examine the debates, and see if they agree with your assessments of me.
This is being run much like the "Salem Witch Trials", where many of them were just Quakers are on Trial because they lead some of the Puritans astray. No matter the reality - they are given an "F" and condemned/dismissed.
Even smart minds behave in this fashion when their worldviews are being threatened. Both the Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - have their fair share of very smart people... and both will respond to challenges against their Holy Book, in this same fashion. It's human wiring.
I was hoping for better, and still hold out that hope. So far, this is just proving to be an Echo Chamber, like the room full of Puritans condemning the Quaker as a witch.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2023.0;attach=1254)
-
@LunarOrbit, your account of what happened here isn't accurate, IMO. Not even close.
It's entirely accurate. Your poor physics knowledge has been exposed. Your repetition of ridiculous claims is being foisted upon the forum.
Your immediate modus operandi is to find ways to obfuscate and divert. There is no honest debate, just you conjuring up anything at all no matter how illogical and absurd.
-
@LunarOrbit, your account of what happened here isn't accurate, IMO. Not even close.
I'd like to see some "neutral eyes" examine the debates, and see if they agree with your assessments of me.
So you're saying that you don't like it when someone self-declares victory?
-
So you're saying that you don't like it when someone self-declares victory?
I don't like it when a forum claiming to be "truth-loving and unbiased" has overseers who use their administrative powers against the opposition.
You can declare self-victory all you want -- but THIS forum is supposed to be "Neutral", right? Instead, it's operating more like the Salem Witch Trials.
I don't mind Apollogists expressing their convictions - and don't even blame them for it - no matter how wrong I may think their conclusions are.
-
The things I'm saying are IMPOSSIBLE -- are IMPOSSIBLE, without the introduction of supernatural forces
No. This is the fundamental issue you're having. You don't seem to see the difference between "XYZ is impossible" and "I don't understand how XYZ could happen". The difference between those two statements is enormous, and your conflation of them as being equivalent is why all of your threads are failures. Repeat this statement until you comprehend, "Something is not impossible just because I don't see the way it could happen."
It is not impossible that something outside your knowledge moved the flag on Apollo 14, no matter how many times you insist on it, just as one example. All of your threads suffer from this ridiculous habit you have of concluding something is impossible based on the fact that you don't see a viable answer.
If you were actually here for debate and discourse, and if you actually had even a tiny shred of integrity, you would ask for help understanding what to you are apparent anomalies. Instead, you've attempted to present them as absolute proof of a hoax unless someone can present to you an explanation that you will accept, the catch being of course, that you will not accept any explanation that contradicts your conclusion.
The types of physics that are being broken are on the level of "Jedi Force"... magic forces operating in a vacuum.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you don't know what is acting on the flag exactly doesn't mean that there is nothing there, and that you can conclude that is therefore fraudulent. Again, there are hours and hours of footage that demonstrate in dozens of different ways that these videos were shot on the Moon. If you claim that this flag anomaly can only be explained by being on Earth, you are then obligated to provide evidence that all of the other many hours were also faked.
This is a bit absurd, but it should demonstrate who ridiculous your claim is in context. If I hypothesized that an unobserved extraterrestrial moved the flag off camera, it would be more likely than your hypothesis that it was filmed on Earth, because my hypothesis, as stupid as it may be, is at least consistent with the rest of the evidence. To be clear, I am not suggesting that aliens moved the flag, but just trying to make you understand that if your hypothesis is less likely than aliens, you are almost certainly doing something wrong.
Please show me one VIABLE COMPLETE hypothesis that I am ignoring, and I'll change my personal conclusion.
You're ignoring mountains upon mountains of affirmative evidence that 12 men worked on the Moon. I won't hold my breath for you to change your mind.
Correct, sorta. When I'm watching that "heart transplant surgery on TV" being told it's real, and it looks real enough, until the Dr. uses Jedi-like forces to make the scalpel float into his hand -- I am calling this proof of fakery.
You should probably avoid analogies altogether as you're not very good at them. The analogy I presented didn't have anything floating or other Jedi forces. This was intentional to reflect reality. I did include an apparent anomaly that is small enough to reflect the types of anomalies you've focused on in your Apollo threads, and like those, one that is explained by a more thorough understanding of the subject matter. You obviously missed that, and that's okay, but again, just don't bother with the analogies if you can't handle them.
-
So you're saying that you don't like it when someone self-declares victory?
I don't like it when a forum claiming to be "truth-loving and unbiased" has overseers who use their administrative powers against the opposition.
You can declare self-victory all you want -- but THIS forum is supposed to be "Neutral", right? Instead, it's operating more like the Salem Witch Trials.
I don't mind Apollogists expressing their convictions - and don't even blame them for it - no matter how wrong I may think their conclusions are.
We are firmly on the side of logic and truth. If you can't handle pushback or questioning you are in the wrong forum.
That report card is the truth as I see it. That's all that matters, right? Why is it okay for you to declare your ideas to be the 100% undisputed truth, but not for me to do the same thing?
-
@LunarOrbit, your account of what happened here isn't accurate, IMO. Not even close.
I'd like to see some "neutral eyes" examine the debates, and see if they agree with your assessments of me.
This is being run much like the "Salem Witch Trials", where many of them were just Quakers are on Trial because they lead some of the Puritans astray. No matter the reality - they are given an "F" and condemned/dismissed.
Even smart minds behave in this fashion when their worldviews are being threatened. Both the Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims - have their fair share of very smart people... and both will respond to challenges against their Holy Book, in this same fashion. It's human wiring.
I was hoping for better, and still hold out that hope. So far, this is just proving to be an Echo Chamber, like the room full of Puritans condemning the Quaker as a witch.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2023.0;attach=1254)
This response is typical of your mistaken belief (one common to many people who have fallen for the moon hoax claims) that the people who defend Apollo are doing so out of ignorance and blind belief, rather than decades of researching the subject and finding no substance in any of the claims made by the hoax believers.
My 'belief' in the historical fact of Apollo has nothing to do with blind faith, it's informed by facts, understanding and knowledge. All gained over 20 years or more of looking at the subject.
Waltzing into a forum whose main purpose is to defend the Apollo missions, assuming you are the only person who has ever looked at the subject, knows better than everyone else, and accusing people of blindly following some form of thought free group think is insulting to the members here.
tl:dr - get over yourself.
-
Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein? I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?
-
Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein? I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?
Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.
-
Didn't najak state that the AGC code wouldn't work or something in the same vein? I'm not going back over several dozen pages to find it, does anyone remember that?
Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.
That's on the Bingo card. It's taking shape. I have to confess though I doctored the card - I have removed 2 rare things and added "petrified wood" and "flags" ;D So close to a line now.
-
Yes. He said the software was not "capable," and did not elaborate beyond citing his lifetime of software experience. Then he said he thought it would not be possible to prove its non-capability to "non-software people," and left it at that.
I still believe this. But the proof is long and incomplete. 72KB of machine instructions is hard to explain... Do they have the full-up EMULATOR online? If so, then I'd have an easier time making this proof. Without an emulator to "run" and "monitor/watch" - all of my time spent on this would be futile. ALREADY Apollogists reject even the Simple Physics proofs. So I'll stick with "simpler stuff" for now.
-
72KB of machine instructions is hard to explain...
To whom? According to whom?
Do they have the full-up EMULATOR online? If so, then I'd have an easier time making this proof. Without an emulator to "run" and "monitor/watch" - all of my time spent on this would be futile.
Agreed, which is why the apparent fact that you haven't run any of the code in any way means your efforts so far have likely been futile and that your beliefs so far are poorly founded. You believe the code is not "capable," and you persist in that belief despite any proof. What have you done so far to support your belief that the program code is not "capable?"
ALREADY Apollogists reject even the Simple Physics proofs.
No. We point out that your simplistic understanding of the relevant physics is not sufficient to support your claims. Since you have overstated your expertise in support of your other claims, it is reasonable to suppose you might be overstating your expertise for this claim too.
So I'll stick with "simpler stuff" for now.
You claim software is your core competency, while such things as rocket science clearly aren't. Why are you avoiding your core competency and instead dabbling in sciences you're just now learning? Why did you seem to assume that no one here would be competent to evaluate your claims regarding software?
-
You claim software is your core competency, while such things as rocket science clearly aren't. Why are you avoiding your core competency and instead dabbling in sciences you're just now learning? Why did you seem to assume that no one here would be competent to evaluate your claims regarding software?
Without emulators - this proof is non-feasible / futile. With a full test setup that I can control the inputs, I could measure it's ability to conduct real-time calcs for navigation and attitude control, thrust control - while conducting it's other running tasks. I would enjoy this -- BUT -- there is no test setup for this to enable this type of a proof.
However, for PHYSICS, NASAX had their work cut out for them... it's very difficult to emulate 1/6th gravity accurately and consistently.
Physics has the advantage of being "Visual" and use simple Newtonian equations to demonstrate "unpredicted behavior" - and some irrefutably so, and to date, have NOT BEEN DEBUNKED.
This threatens Apollogetics who really love to (dishonestly) say "We've Debunked ALL MLH claims"... when they clearly have not. They simply bury the claims that they cannot debunk.
-
Without emulators - this proof is non-feasible / futile.
So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"
-
So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"
Experience. A few hours looking at the code, looking for algorithms that could "auto-pilot a spacecraft while maintaining attitude control". Inclusion of feedback loop for attitude control. Inclusion of "math to predict RCS response based on a changing Inertia Moment" (as fuel is used up, or AM vs. LM). Inclusion of Mascons, which cause a variance in steady-state orbital altitude by up to 7 nm, every 2 hours, and the impact this might have.
Lots of missing stuff. So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.
43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help. 4KB RAM doesn't help. Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.
So without emulators - this is all just "unprovable suppositions" -- so a waste of my time. No fruit can be born from this without emulation of the system, including theoretical inputs from the dozens of other electronic sensors and devices attached.
-
Experience.
What experience do you have with the Apollo Guidance Computer? What experience do you have with any missile guidance systems?
Lots of missing stuff.
Well, some of that stuff is based on what you think a spaceship should need, which we've already found to be deficient. Why do you think I keep asking you how many actual spacecraft you've worked on? And some of the stuff like jet control is right there, so I guess you didn't really look very hard.
So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.
So you skimmed the code written for an obscure architecture without running any of it and without a correct knowledge of the problems it was trying to solve and simply concluded that it wouldn't work. I'm glad you don't write software for me.
43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help. 4KB RAM doesn't help. Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.
Yeah, these are the standard vague claims. You still haven't dealt with the fact that well-known people have run the actual code on the actual hardware and seen that it works. Funny how people who put in more work than you arrive at the conventional narrative.
-
So what did you do to support your assessment that the AGC computer code was not "capable?"
Experience. A few hours looking at the code, looking for algorithms that could "auto-pilot a spacecraft while maintaining attitude control". Inclusion of feedback loop for attitude control. Inclusion of "math to predict RCS response based on a changing Inertia Moment" (as fuel is used up, or AM vs. LM). Inclusion of Mascons, which cause a variance in steady-state orbital altitude by up to 7 nm, every 2 hours, and the impact this might have.
Lots of missing stuff. So then I stopped, because I knew this would be "hard-to-prove" and so futile.
43KHz speed for low-level instructions - doesn't help. 4KB RAM doesn't help. Archaic Computing tech doesn't help.
What speed do you "think" was available in a portable size to go to the Moon, how much memory do you think it needs, because those dumb ole boys at MIT cut it down to the bare minimum. I like to see you attempt that.
So without emulators - this is all just "unprovable suppositions" -- so a waste of my time. No fruit can be born from this without emulation of the system, including theoretical inputs from the dozens of other electronic sensors and devices attached.
You are way in over your head lecturing Jay.
-
You still haven't dealt with the fact that well-known people have run the actual code on the actual hardware and seen that it works. Funny how people who put in more work than you arrive at the conventional narrative.
It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC. Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware - simply make an emulator that matches the specs, and runs the code.
But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see". Sounds par for the course for Apollo.
If they created the emulator instead -- MANY could test it, and validate it -- but this could reveal a truth they want to keep hidden. So nope, let's do something very isolated.
Where is this "AGC simulation" - I'd like to take a field trip and spend a few days on it. Measure the performance, see the task management in process -- if they'd permit me.
-
It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC. Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware - simply make an emulator that matches the specs, and runs the code.
But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see". Sounds par for the course for Apollo.
If they created the emulator instead -- MANY could test it, and validate it -- but this could reveal a truth they want to keep hidden. So nope, let's do something very isolated.
What am I missing here? You say it would be easy to do something that is inside your field of expertise, and you believe that this emulator will allow you to prove the hoax you believe in. So, make the emulator? Again, what am I missing? This sounds like exactly the type of homework you should be able to complete.
-
It would have been easier to simply create the emulator for this AGC.
Yeah, Mike Stewart did that many years ago. It was incorporated into a version of Orbiter that let you run the Apollo missions. It's on the ibiblio site that you were directed to and promptly ignored.
Instead of dealing with antique custom hardware...
The project was to rebuild and demonstrate both. The project wasn't to validate the software.
But they chose to do something in a way that "only a few people get to see". Sounds par for the course for Apollo.
You mean like following the whole project on YouTube and touring it around the country at professional conferences? Yeah, real cloak-and-dagger stuff there.
Where is this "AGC simulation"...
If you're interested in Mike Stewart's work, contact him.
You keep telling me what's necessary to know whether the software worked or not. And I tend to agree: the software we produce at my company relies heavily on simulation strategies for validation. That's why I'm so very interested in how you were able to figure out that it didn't work just by skimming the code and obviously overlooking a lot of it.
-
You say it would be easy to do something that is inside your field of expertise, and you believe that this emulator will allow you to prove the hoax you believe in. So, make the emulator? Again, what am I missing? This sounds like exactly the type of homework you should be able to complete.
"Easier" than creating custom hardware. Easier to emulate with software. They have 1000's of emulators today. Much easier than what they did -- AND would have the added "benefit" of ANYONE being able to download their emulator and test it themselves.
They chose a harder route, and one where it's locked down to a single physical location.
-
You say it would be easy to do something that is inside your field of expertise, and you believe that this emulator will allow you to prove the hoax you believe in. So, make the emulator? Again, what am I missing? This sounds like exactly the type of homework you should be able to complete.
"Easier" than creating custom hardware. Easier to emulate with software. They have 1000's of emulators today. Much easier than what they did -- AND would have the added "benefit" of ANYONE being able to download their emulator and test it themselves.
They chose a harder route, and one where it's locked down to a single physical location.
And they also made an emulator, which is even open source so you can go check it out https://github.com/virtualagc/virtualagc
Its amazing what intensive research like simply doing a Google search for "Apollo guidance computer emulator" can find
-
Yeah, Mike Stewart did that many years ago. It was incorporated into a version of Orbiter that let you run the Apollo missions. It's on the ibiblio site that you were directed to and promptly ignored.
Downloaded his repo from Github, and having a look. It is very old, targeted at WindowsXP/Vista era.
His readme makes this statement:
"The repository contains the actual assembly-language source code for the AGC, for as many missions as we've been able to acquire" <== INCOMPLETE.
And:
"Virtual AGC is not a flight simulator, nor a lunar-lander simulator, nor even a behavioral simulation of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM)..."
So the setup is incomplete and abandoned. In order to validate this meaningfully, need a "Complete set of source code" as well as emulated components - and a simulation script of various feeds.
This is all stuff the would have HAD to do in 1968+ to validate it's operation/functionality/performance.
I saw a video a few months back of some young guy in a lab with a "full hardware setup" and data feeds to emulate more of the mission. Not sure where that video is now, have you seen it? This was the situation where "whatever they did for this setup" would have been immensely easier as a downloadable/shareable emulator suite...
CONCLUSION: There still exists no sufficient platform for validating this AGC and it's software.
So despite my cursory educated assessment - there's nothing I can viably prove here. So I'll keep my focus on the Physics, mostly.
-
So the setup is incomplete and abandoned.
Yeah, he moved on to actual hardware.
In order to validate this meaningfully, need a "Complete set of source code" as well as emulated components - and a simulation script of various feeds.
Yeah, which Mike went on to do and you didn't, documenting everything on his YouTube channel and presenting it to professionals. So why does your brief, incomplete skimming of the code matter? You did nothing and you're all out of ideas.
-
This is all stuff the would have HAD to do in 1968+ to validate it's operation/functionality/performance.
Yes, there was an emulator back in the day. The software and hardware for Apollo has been documented in several books. The people who wrote the software still write and tour today. It is one of the most copiously documented portions of the Apollo missions. Yet you come along and after casually perusing the code on paper, you can determine that it wouldn't have worked.
The sheer arrogance...
-
You did nothing and you're all out of ideas.
I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight. New Topics, that you don't want others to see.
-
I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight. New Topics, that you don't want others to see.
Nonsense. Here's a person who wrote an emulator many years ago for the AGC. Then he spent several subsequent years acquiring hardware to simulate the various parts of the spacecraft. Then when a derelict AGC frame became available, he spend years and tons of money restoring it to full functionality. And he documented the whole process on YouTube. And then he toured all of that around the country for people who were quite well equipped to expose him if he were lying.
You perused the code and missed most of the important parts. You're not dangerous. You're not even relevant.
-
I've got ideas that you are scared for me to put into the spotlight. New Topics, that you don't want others to see.
AGC point is moot. I spent a few hours on it, drew a PRELIMINARY professional conclusion... and then correctly concluded that "trying to prove anything about this will be a waste of time." So I smartly moved on to things that are more feasible to prove.
You are afraid for me to present these other ideas, of the non-debunked nature.
This ruins your beloved false/dishonest claim that "We've debunked ALL of the MLH theories." - This is a lie.
-
AGC point is moot.
No, it isn't. You brought it up and declared it to deficient.
I spent a few hours on it, drew a PRELIMINARY professional conclusion... and then correctly concluded that "trying to prove anything about this will be a waste of time."
You rendered an opinion out of ignorance. You have no significant experience with the code base or the architecture, and you sneered at those who do. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident. Nearly all your presentations here are opinions rendered in ignorance.
You are afraid for me to present these other ideas, of the non-debunked nature.
This ruins your beloved false/dishonest claim that "We've debunked ALL of the MLH theories." - This is a lie.
I agree with my colleagues. You really need to get over yourself.