ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: tarkus on June 10, 2015, 04:49:46 PM
-
Hello, I do not speak English, so why I write is what the translator of Google translate in my place, I do not think this means an insurmountable disadvantage because I can read to you without drawbacks, however Anador think my message in language Original (Spanish) case.
The first thing I want to point out is that it is too coincidental that the only mission went wrong, the only one with such bad luck has been the No. 13 ... which could be a coincidence but it also decided that NASA took off at exactly 13 hours and 13 minutes ... :o WOW !!! one would think the script for this movie had been previously written.
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
(http://i57.tinypic.com/snf5kw.jpg)
AS13-62-8909
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/nn15af.jpg)
AS13-61-8727
The third question comes from this video, and section runs from 19:23 to 20.11 minutes, we see Fred Haise being filmed and then the camera goes to LM where the other two atronautas appear ... who filmed this scene if only were three on board?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA)
Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS. And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.
Original message:
Hola, no hablo inglés, por lo tanto esto que escribo será lo que el translator de Google traduzca en mi lugar, no creo que esto signifique un inconveniente insalvable pues yo puedo leerles a ustedes sin inconvenientes, de todos modos pienso añador mi mensaje en idioma original (español) por si acaso.
Lo primero que quiero señalar es que me resulta demasiada casualidad el hecho de que la única misión que anduvo mal, la única con tan mala suerte haya sido la Nº 13... lo cual podría ser una mera coincidencia pero resulta que además NASA dispuso que despegase exactamente a las 13 horas y 13 minutos... WOW!!! uno pensaría que el guión de esta película ya había sido previamente escrito.
Lo segundo que me ha llamado la atención es estas extrañas imágenes donde vemos al módulo de comando separado del módulo de servicio en la órbita lunar (?) ¿porqué se harían esa maniobra si NASA asegura que el CSM regresó completo hasta la Tierra?
La tercer cuestión proviene de este video, y la sección va del minuto 19:23 al 20.11, vemos a Fred Haise siendo filmado y luego la cámara se dirige al LM donde aparecen los otros dos atronautas... ¿quién filmó esta escena si sólo iban tres a bordo?
En cuarto lugar tengo profundas dudas respecto al plan de vuelo dispuesto, según NASA los tripulantes usaron el módulo de descenso como bote salvavidas, y aquí hay dos cuestiones para resolver, la primera es cómo pudo el pequeño motor del LM para conseguir el empuje y la autonomía necesarios si (según la propia NASA) a Armstrong apenas le sobraron 6 segundos de combustible para conseguir alunizar la Apollo 11, con el agravante de que ahora tenían que cargar con el peso muerto de las casi 30 tn de peso del CS inútil. Y aquí es donde nos encontramos con el pretexto esgrimido por NASA: lo hicieron así para proteger el escudo térmico de la cápsula (?) y esto sí que suena a disparate, ¿por qué razón habría que cuidar tanto la parte más resistente de todo el cohete Saturno? si la frágil construcción del LM no tuvo ningún inconveniente para viajar por el vacío espacial, no se comprende entonces tantos cuidados para un escudo diseñado para sobrevivir a las terribles exigencias que impone la reentrada a la atmósfera.
-
Hello, I do not speak English, so why I write is what the translator of Google translate in my place, I do not think this means an insurmountable disadvantage because I can read to you without drawbacks, however Anador think my message in language Original (Spanish) case.
The first thing I want to point out is that it is too coincidental that the only mission went wrong, the only one with such bad luck has been the No. 13 ... which could be a coincidence but it also decided that NASA took off at exactly 13 hours and 13 minutes ... :o WOW !!! one would think the script for this movie had been previously written.
Depends where you are. Most mission timings refer to GMT, which was 19:13. Not such a wow.
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
You may need to explain this better - it isn't clear what you think is the problem.
The third question comes from this video, and section runs from 19:23 to 20.11 minutes, we see Fred Haise being filmed and then the camera goes to LM where the other two atronautas appear ... who filmed this scene if only were three on board?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA)
Haise is holding the camera. Think 'video selfie'
Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.
By the time Armstrong arrived at the surface they had already performed burns to slow it down sufficiently to take them out of orbit as well as burn fuel to land further than they anticipated.
The CSM/LM craft was already moving at speed thanks to the TLI burn - it had momentum. Quite a bit of the CSM's mass had disappeared thanks to the explosion.
And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.
Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.
-
Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CSM.
The velocity of the whole spacecraft (combined CSM/LM) came from its slingshot orbit around the moon, called a "free return trajectory".
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Circumlunar-free-return-trajectory.png/800px-Circumlunar-free-return-trajectory.png)
The very reason that this maneuvre was undertaken was because the LM descent motor was not powerful enough and the LM did not carry enough fuel for an abort/return scenario. The LM motor was used only to make orbital corrections, and that did not require more than a few tens of seconds burn time (IIRC they made two corrections)
ETA: I don't know if they carried out a TEI burn as well as two orbital corrections. Someone here will know.
And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.
The LM only had to be strong enough to operate in 1/6th gravity and zero gravity. Consequently, its construction was very much more lightweight that it would have been had it needed to operate in Earth gravity
And if you think it is some type of fluke that Apollo 13 was the only Apollo mission that had trouble, think again. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning just after launch, and they were very lucky it didn't blow up and put an end to the Apollo program right there! There were also a lot of other things that did not go according to plan.
-
Welcome to the forum, tarkus. I appreciate your including the original language post, but I can't read it myself so we'll have to play Question and Answer for a while until we fully understand what you mean.
Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.
The LM motor had variable thrust, It was designed to quickly slow the fully fueled LM in orbit, then throttle down to gently land the greatly reduced mass of the nearly fuel depleted craft on the moon. And no, it didn't have to "carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons," just change the velocity to an already moving spacecraft. I think you can see how the is what a rocket engine would do in both circumstances. (landing and as a rescue craft) If you think it wan't strong enough, then there are calculations that you can perform that will show whether the LM descent stage motor was sufficient or not for both its designed purpose and rescue uses.
-
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
What window in the LM were these photos taken from?
-
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
The CSM and LM are not separated in these pictures. They are still docked. The CM was photographed through the LM's overhead rendezvous window.
Although you see the moon in the background, the CSM/LM were not in lunar orbit at the time. They did not fire an engine to brake into lunar orbit as originally planned, so they simply passed around the far side and returned to earth.
-
Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.
The Apollo 13 LM did re-enter the atmosphere; it burned up and surviving debris fell into the Pacific Ocean.
I think he's asking why the heavy and useless Service Module was left attached to the Command Module after the explosion. NASA says that was done to protect the heat shield, but he's wondering how a heat shield designed to withstand extremely high temperatures could be damaged by exposure to the low temperatures in space.
Well, that's the answer right there. The heat shield was designed for high temperatures, not low temperatures.
-
the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.
On Apollo 13, the LM engine was required to make only small adjustments to the flight path given to it by the very large Saturn V rocket that launched it toward the moon. Without the LM engine, the spacecraft would still have gone around the moon and headed back toward earth, but it would have missed it. The astronauts would have been stranded in space.
The LM engine was used several times: first, to adjust the path so Apollo 13 would actually hit the earth on its return, and later to speed up that return. It was also used to make very small final adjustments to its path shortly before arriving back at the earth.
-
Tarkus, do you know about "Apollo by the Numbers"? It was originally a book, but if you go to the website
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/contents.htm
you can look up a great deal of highly-detailed information about all the Apollo missions.
Click on APOLLO 13 - The Seventh Mission: The Third Lunar Landing Attempt
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13a_Summary.htm
and you get pages of the story of the mission, then at the bottom click on NEXT on each page and you get data sheets:
Apollo 13 Objectives
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13b_Objectives.htm
Apollo 13 Spacecraft History
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13c_Spacecraft_History.htm
Apollo 13 Ascent Phase
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13d_Ascent_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Earth Orbit Phase
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13e_Earth_Orbit_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Translunar Phase
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13f_Translunar_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Transearth Phase
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13g_Transearth_Phase.htm
Apollo 13 Timeline - many pages of information
– http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13h_Timeline.htm
The translunar phase includes data on burns by the command/service module and the lunar module, and the transearth phase includes data on the one transearth injection burn and the two mid-course correction burns by the LM, one by the ascent engine of 14.00 seconds and one by the thrusters of 21.50 seconds, 3.2 ft/sec velocity change.
Then there are many more data sheets about all the missions.
-
Again I am not sure what your issue is. The LM did not re-enter the atmosphere.
The Apollo 13 LM did re-enter the atmosphere; it burned up and surviving debris fell into the Pacific Ocean.
I know you know what I mean, so :P
I think he's asking why the heavy and useless Service Module was left attached to the Command Module after the explosion. NASA says that was done to protect the heat shield, but he's wondering how a heat shield designed to withstand extremely high temperatures could be damaged by exposure to the low temperatures in space.
Well, that's the answer right there. The heat shield was designed for high temperatures, not low temperatures.
Aah I get it now.
Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?
-
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
(http://i57.tinypic.com/snf5kw.jpg)
AS13-62-8909
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/nn15af.jpg)
AS13-61-8727
In those photos, the astronaut is photographing the top of the CM, as seen from the LM window, while the LM and CSM are docked. From this angle, it is obviously impossible to see the SM, which as you should know, is attached to the bottom of the CM.
ETA- ninja'ed dang it :)
-
Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?
Not that I'm aware of. The oxygen tanks were certainly empty, and without them the hydrogen tanks and fuel cells were useless. The Service Propulsion System had full propellant tanks, but it was suspected to be damaged by the explosion. Batteries were not added to the SM until Apollo 14.
The high gain antenna was also damaged (it was hit by the separating panel). I don't know if it was still usable; I'd have to check the record to see if was still in use at the time of the explosion or if they'd restarted the BBQ roll and gone back to omni antennas after the TV transmission. In any event, without power for the CM communications equipment, it didn't much matter.
So the SM was basically just a massively heavy thermal cover for the CM heat shield.
-
Just spit-balling, but is it possible they left the SM in place to protect the heat shield from any of the surrounding debris impacting it, too?
-
It seems to have been a mostly conservative decision. Yes they would have been able to add more speed on the return leg, but they didn't need more speed, they needed fewer unknowns.
-
Seagull?
-
It seems to have been a mostly conservative decision. Yes they would have been able to add more speed on the return leg, but they didn't need more speed, they needed fewer unknowns.
AIUI, re-entry is a precise manoeuvre that has upper and lower limits on speed and a very narrow corridor. More speed would have resulted in the need to shed that speed before arrival at earth, and that would require the risk of additional engine burns. The configuration of the spacecraft was such that these burns would require turning the whole thing end for end to use the LM motor to slow down. Then they would have to turn the capsule end for end again for re-entry. That is two very big additional and unnecessary risks.
-
The descent engine died during trans-earth coast. The helium burst disk blew, rendering the engine inoperative. Perhaps the ascent engine still worked? Using that would require them to jettison the descent module - and the big batteries in it.
-
Seagull?
Hasn't been logged in since he posted, so that would be a probable "yes".
-
Just spit-balling, but is it possible they left the SM in place to protect the heat shield from any of the surrounding debris impacting it, too?
I don't think so. Most of the major debris flew outward, and the relative velocities were fairly small anyway.
-
The descent engine died during trans-earth coast. The helium burst disk blew, rendering the engine inoperative. Perhaps the ascent engine still worked? Using that would require them to jettison the descent module - and the big batteries in it.
Don't think they could have used the ascent engine, seem to remember reading something at the time about insufficient attitude control power for the no-DM configuration.
-
Depends where you are. Most mission timings refer to GMT, which was 19:13. Not such a wow.
It wasn't even 13:13 local time at the launch site. 13:13 was Houston time.
-
Hello, I do not speak English, so why I write is what the translator of Google translate in my place, I do not think this means an insurmountable disadvantage because I can read to you without drawbacks, however Anador think my message in language Original (Spanish) case.
Welcome to the board. Hopefully the translation should not cause to many problems, but translation software is not perfect, so misunderstandings may arise.
The first thing I want to point out is that it is too coincidental that the only mission went wrong, the only one with such bad luck has been the No. 13 ... which could be a coincidence but it also decided that NASA took off at exactly 13 hours and 13 minutes ... :o WOW !!! one would think the script for this movie had been previously written.
Coincidences happen. In the case of the Apollo 13 incident, too many small and unrelated things came together for there to be any great significance. The launch time was 13.13 at Mission control, 14.13 at the launch site, and 19.13 GMT (or UTC). This timing was dictaed by the planned landing site.
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
They are not in lunar orbit, only flying round the Moon once to return to Earth. The pictures are taken through the docking window at the top of the LM (visible on the video you linked to at 20:00), and from that angle the conical command module is clearly visible, but the cylindrical service module is hidden behind it. It's still there, just not visible in the picture due to perspective.
The third question comes from this video, and section runs from 19:23 to 20.11 minutes, we see Fred Haise being filmed and then the camera goes to LM where the other two atronautas appear ... who filmed this scene if only were three on board?
Haise was holding the camera. Notice he only appears briefly at the edge of the frame, we never see all of him, and he has one arm extended out of shot. Movie camera selfie, and probably unintentional.
Fourth I have deep doubts about the flight plan provisions, as NASA crew used the lander as a lifeboat, and here are two issues to resolve, the first is how could the small motor LM to get the drive and autonomy necessary if (as the very NASA) Armstrong barely six seconds of fuel left over for Apollo 11 landing on the moon, with the aggravating circumstance that now had to carry the dead weight of nearly 30 tons of useless weight of CS.
It did not need to. It only had to adjust the course of the spacecraft that was already moving at several thousand mph such that it would swing around the moon and return to Earth.
And this is where we find the pretext advanced by NASA (?) They did so to protect the heat shield of the capsule and this does sound like nonsense, why would you look both toughest part of the whole Saturn rocket? if the fragile construction of the LM had no objection to travel through empty space, it is not then understand much care for a shield designed to survive the terrible demands imposed reentry into the atmosphere.
The heat shield is not the toughest part of the craft except in the situation of re-entry. It was designed to char and burn away, thus taking the heat of re-entry with it and away from the command module. However, if it were exposed to the vacuum of space, which is a very effective heat sink, the cooling process might crack the heat shield, or it might impact some of the debris from the oxygen tank explosion, or uneven heating of the spacecraft by the Sun might cause it to crack. That would make it useless. Better to protect it from all those things and make sure it would work when it was needed.
-
The descent engine died during trans-earth coast. The helium burst disk blew, rendering the engine inoperative. Perhaps the ascent engine still worked? Using that would require them to jettison the descent module - and the big batteries in it.
Don't think they could have used the ascent engine, seem to remember reading something at the time about insufficient attitude control power for the no-DM configuration.
How could that be - the attitude control system was not dependent on the descent stage?
-
I wonder if it was less to do with dependency on the descent stage and the position of the LM attitude control system in relation to the centre of mass? Dropping the descent stage sheds a fair chunk of mass at one end of the stack, and your attitude control system is then basically right at the end of the CSM-ascent stage arrangement. Intuitively that doesn't seem the best place to put it, though I am well aware of how counter-intuitive a lot of these things are, so I await the word of a more qualified person... :)
-
Shouldn't really matter - it would just make it more effective. Moving the end of the stick instead of twisting the center.
-
AIUI, re-entry is a precise manoeuvre that has upper and lower limits on speed and a very narrow corridor.
Quite right. A13 had a reentry velocity of 36,210.6 ft/sec, the second highest of all missions, after A10 at 36,314 ft/sec. So there wasn't any practical benefit to be gained speed wise to ejecting the SM.
-
Depends where you are. Most mission timings refer to GMT, which was 19:13. Not such a wow.
It wasn't even 13:13 local time at the launch site. 13:13 was Houston time.
If you stick to strict solar system, it's always 13:13 somewhere.
-
The OP poster has not been back at all; last activity is still the date and time of the OP (i.e. two full days as of this post). Does seem to be a seagull.
-
I wonder if it was less to do with dependency on the descent stage and the position of the LM attitude control system in relation to the centre of mass? Dropping the descent stage sheds a fair chunk of mass at one end of the stack, and your attitude control system is then basically right at the end of the CSM-ascent stage arrangement.
I think this was already the case. The CSM with a nearly full load of SPS propellant was much heavier than the LM, so the LM controls worked very differently. For example, a forward translation would turn into a pitch-up maneuver.
-
Forgive my ignorance, but what is a seagull? From context, I'm assuming its a term for drive-by posters, perhaps?
-
A one-time user - who drops a load of nonsense, and flies on never to be seen again.
-
;D Ahh, a digital seagull dropping digital poopoo. Kudos to whomever coined that term, lol!
-
Don't think they could have used the ascent engine, seem to remember reading something at the time about insufficient attitude control power for the no-DM configuration.
How could that be - the attitude control system was not dependent on the descent stage?
Can't locate my source, think it was a NASA Tech Memo, but the problem was that the Ascent Engine was fixed, unlike the gimbaled Descent Engine, and moreover wasn't aligned with the stack centre of mass.
-
Why is it we have to continually do these people's homework for them?
-
Don't think they could have used the ascent engine, seem to remember reading something at the time about insufficient attitude control power for the no-DM configuration.
Probably referring to the fact that the descent engine was gimbaled, while the ascent engine was not.
A much bigger problem with staging the LM was that most of the consumables were in the descent stage, particularly batteries and water -- the most critical.
-
Yep. From the habit of seagulls of flying overhead, depositing a mess, and leaving.
EDIT: Didn't look closely, missed a bunch of replies. :-(
-
No worries, thank you for taking the time to reply anyhow!
-
Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?
Meteorite protection?
-
Why is it we have to continually do these people's homework for them?
That kind of goes with inviting hoax believers to post. If they'd done the homework, they wouldn't be HBs. And we all learn something new!
-
I have to say, I've learned more about Apollo and the space program in general the last few years just reading what is posted in correcting misinformed hoaxbelievers. It's really an awesome resource!
-
I have to say, I've learned more about Apollo and the space program in general the last few years just reading what is posted in correcting misinformed hoaxbelievers. It's really an awesome resource!
Completely!
Every so often one of them will ask something different and you have to avoid your own knee-jerk response of "don't be a moron" and do some work to counter it.
The frustrating thing is that they seem incapable of using google.
-
Were there other benefits at all to keeping the SM attached? Did it have residual supplies that were of use?
Meteorite protection?
I think you mean "meteoroid". A meteorite is the remains of a meteoroid that has fallen to earth as a meteor.
The early Apollo literature is full of analyses of the potential hazards of radiation and micrometeoroids. We've talked about how they mitigated the radiation hazard, such as trajectories that passed through the Van Allen belts at high geomagnetic latitudes and frequent dosimeter readings.
The spacecraft were also designed to resist small micrometeoroids. The CM had a lot of inherent protection from its relatively thick heat shield and double-hulled structure, so the heat shield wasn't at much risk.
But the LM's severe weight limits required something more clever. The ascent stage used "Whipple shields": thin sheets of metal held by standoffs some distance from the pressure vessel. (This also created a space for aluminized Mylar or Kapton thermal blankets.)
The idea of a Whipple shield is that a small micrometeoroid hitting the outer shield will still puncture it without losing much kinetic energy, but it will fragment into many smaller pieces that spread out and hit the inner wall in different places. The inner wall thus has a much better chance of withstanding the strike than a direct hit from the original object.
As it turned out, micrometeoroids simply weren't a major problem in translunar space or on the moon for the short duration of an Apollo mission. There was also far less debris in near-earth space than there is now.
-
I have to say, I've learned more about Apollo and the space program in general the last few years just reading what is posted in correcting misinformed hoaxbelievers. It's really an awesome resource!
THIS!! I have learned stuff here that a never knew about even though I watch anything to do with Apollo broadcast on the documentary channels of Sky TV (Discovery, NatGeo, BBC Knowledge & History)
Apollohoax also serves another very useful function, and that is exposure of the falsehoods perpetrated by HB's like the Whimper, Hunchbacked and the Blunder from Down Under. Even if we can't convince an HB he's wrong. the reasoned, researched and logical replies here serve to educate those lurkers who read the pages of this forum, and I suspect there are quite a few.
I have a regular customer at my shop who is a mad keen Apollo follower. He lurks here but hasn't joined yet despite my inviting him several times......Yes Mike, I'm talking about you!!!!
-
I think you mean "meteoroid". A meteorite is the remains of a meteoroid that has fallen to earth as a meteor.
So on a body that has negligible atmosphere. such as the Moon, is a meteoroid still a meteoroid once it has come to rest on the surface?
A meteor is considered the phase where a meteoroid burns up in the atmosphere, and a meteorite is a meteor that has survived re-entry. Without the burning up part, what does a meteroid become? I assume it is a meteoroid, as I have seen reference to micrometeroid in articles about the Moon, but then I have seen the term micrometeorite too.
-
I think you mean "meteoroid". A meteorite is the remains of a meteoroid that has fallen to earth as a meteor.
So on a body that has negligible atmosphere. such as the Moon, is a meteoroid still a meteoroid once it has come to rest on the surface?
A meteor is considered the phase where a meteoroid burns up in the atmosphere, and a meteorite is a meteor that has survived re-entry. Without the burning up part, what does a meteroid become? I assume it is a meteoroid, as I have seen reference to micrometeroid in articles about the Moon, but then I have seen the term micrometeorite too.
AIUI
Meteoroid = when it is in space
Meteor = when it is entering atmosphere
Meteorite = what is leftover that makes it to the surface
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Meteors
-
Apollohoax also serves another very useful function, and that is exposure of the falsehoods perpetrated by HB's like the Whimper, Hunchbacked and the Blunder from Down Under. Even if we can't convince an HB he's wrong. the reasoned, researched and logical replies here serve to educate those lurkers who read the pages of this forum, and I suspect there are quite a few.
I can't remember who it was who kept insisting the the lurkers knew he was right, but someone responded by starting a poll. We had several lurkers come forward and say, no, he was obviously really wrong.
-
Cosmored has done that elsewhere (I think it was JREF) , so it could have been him.
It didn't work at JREF either, but for some people learning from mistakes isn't a strong suit
-
Cosmored has done that elsewhere (I think it was JREF) , so it could have been him.
It didn't work at JREF either, but for some people learning from mistakes isn't a strong suit
cosmored insists that on EVERY forum he posts on. Nobody ever comes to his aid though. Cosmo just says thats part of the censorship.
-
Or if you disagree with Cosmored's "obvious" truth, then naturally you must be a dishonest person. And he doesn't debate with "dishonest" people, so he ignores you.
-
I can't remember who it was who kept insisting the the lurkers knew he was right, but someone responded by starting a poll. We had several lurkers come forward and say, no, he was obviously really wrong.
Wasn't it lazarusty?
-
I am most concerned with the references to 13. I work away a lot and have, on numerous occasions, stayed in a room with the odious numerals on the portal blocking device. I am now concerned my hotel will crash the next time I stay in room 13.
But wait, what if it is the thirteenth floor and room 13?
-
I am most concerned with the references to 13. I work away a lot and have, on numerous occasions, stayed in a room with the odious numerals on the portal blocking device. I am now concerned my hotel will crash the next time I stay in room 13.
But wait, what if it is the thirteenth floor and room 13?
Most hotels skip the number 13 on rooms and floors.
-
I am most concerned with the references to 13. I work away a lot and have, on numerous occasions, stayed in a room with the odious numerals on the portal blocking device. I am now concerned my hotel will crash the next time I stay in room 13.
But wait, what if it is the thirteenth floor and room 13?
Most hotels skip the number 13 on rooms and floors.
And in areas with large Chinese populations, any floor ending in 4 (leading to floors 1,2,3,5,...11,12,15...). This leads to me computing the real floor number for the floor I'm staying on.
-
Most hotels skip the number 13 on rooms and floors.
Now that is really funny.
Ever since I first heard that back in the 1980's, I always check up on this. I have stayed a couple of dozen hotels of 13 stories or more over the years since then and I have yet to find one that skipped numbering the 13th floor as 13.
-
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
(http://i57.tinypic.com/snf5kw.jpg)
AS13-62-8909
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/nn15af.jpg)
AS13-61-8727
In those photos, the astronaut is photographing the top of the CM, as seen from the LM window, while the LM and CSM are docked. From this angle, it is obviously impossible to see the SM, which as you should know, is attached to the bottom of the CM.
ETA- ninja'ed dang it :)
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
Welcome back.
What is your experience in photo analysis? How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps you could tell us what the relationship between the LM and SM are since you insist it cannot be the one evident in the photo. Please show your work?
-
The second thing that has struck me is these strange images where we see the separate command module service module in lunar orbit (?) Why this maneuver would do if NASA says the CSM completely returned to Earth?
(http://i57.tinypic.com/snf5kw.jpg)
AS13-62-8909
(http://oi62.tinypic.com/nn15af.jpg)
AS13-61-8727
In those photos, the astronaut is photographing the top of the CM, as seen from the LM window, while the LM and CSM are docked. From this angle, it is obviously impossible to see the SM, which as you should know, is attached to the bottom of the CM.
ETA- ninja'ed dang it :)
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
Well, its quite simple really. The LM window through which the photo was taken is not as far from the midline of the stack as the edge of the CSM, so its not possible to see the sides
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/apocsmlm.jpg)
Windows red arrowed
Best possible line-of-sight blue arrowed
-
Furthermore, the photos clearly show windows and a hatch, which the Command Module has and the cylindrical Service Module does not.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
If you look carefully at the image you can see a long 'pole' structure sticking out from the spacecraft. This is the EVA floodlight boom, and is attached to the service module structure, not the command module.
You can see it here on the discarded SM, circled in red (I have adjusted the contrast to highlight it):
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2n8d2tk.jpg)
from this:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS13/58/8456.jpg
and you can also see it more clearly on this Apollo 15 image:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11961HR.jpg
The apparent continuation of the pole towards the CM window is just the reflection of it.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
And what about commenting on the other areas that you were so sure of in your original post?
- The number 13?
- The filming of Haise?
- The use of the LM motor?
- The heatshield?
Why ignore the answers that you were given on these to comment only on your erroneous interpretation of the photos of the CSM/LM stack? I wouldn't like to assume that you have now conceded the other points......I'd much rather hear you say that.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
What is the angle of the camera's line of sight relative to the angle the CSM is pointing? How does the confined space of the LM interior and the position of the window affect this? How close is the camera to the service module? How far off-centre from the conical service module must the camera be to bring the cylindrical service module into view assuming the axis of the CSM and the axis of the camera are parallel and offset?
In other words, tarkus, show your work, don't make sweeping statements that 'cearly' the 'only' possible thing you claim is not happening. Show that it is clear, and show that it is the only possible arragement.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
What is the angle of the camera's line of sight relative to the angle the CSM is pointing? How does the confined space of the LM interior and the position of the window affect this? How close is the camera to the service module? How far off-centre from the conical service module must the camera be to bring the cylindrical service module into view assuming the axis of the CSM and the axis of the camera are parallel and offset?
In other words, tarkus, show your work, don't make sweeping statements that 'cearly' the 'only' possible thing you claim is not happening. Show that it is clear, and show that it is the only possible arragement.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/LM.jpg)
The only part of the LM that is far enough away from the centreline of the stack to get a view of the SM is the part I have highlighted in green (and I have gone back and done the same in the stack diagram I posted in my previous post.
I am pretty sure that, not only are there no windows in that part, but also that the crew have no access to that part, at least not internally. Someone more expert that me will confirm or otherwise.
I have also highlighted the location of the docking window (located above the main window) through which those photos were probably taken. I am not sure if there is another docking window above the other main window. No doubt someone will confirm.
-
Or let's keep things very very simple:
Am I holding just the lid of my grandson's jar of zoo animals:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/732li9.jpg)
Or the whole jar:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2qtfqmf.jpg)
Same photo, cropped differently.
-
I am pretty sure that, not only are there no windows in that part, but also that the crew have no access to that part, at least not internally. Someone more expert that me will confirm or otherwise.
You are correct. The tank is outside the pressurised crew cabin, the crew would have to do an EVA to reach it.
-
I am not sure if there is another docking window above the other main window. No doubt someone will confirm.
Only the commander's side had an overhead docking window. And yes, the ascent-stage propellant tanks are outside the pressure vessel.
tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated. You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer. In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson: you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.
-
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
Welcome back.
What is your experience in photo analysis? How did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps you could tell us what the relationship between the LM and SM are since you insist it cannot be the one evident in the photo. Please show your work?
Are you not responding properly, and please do not divert the discussion ... I repeat.:
Only if the tip of the cone points directly to the observer CM, SM cylinder will be hidden by the capsule. Clearly not the case. Two examples:
1) Cylinder NOT visible:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Apollo-9-CSM-for-LM.jpg)
2) Cylinder visible:
(http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Image-of-Apollo-17-CSM.jpg)
The image of the SM can only be obtained from the LM (coupled to CM), and from that point of view it is IMPOSSIBLE cylinder SM is hidden as is arguing wrongly.
In this other image the error is best seen with models ... where is the SM?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/ajwg38.jpg)
?????
SM visible:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/AS10-27-3881.jpg)
SM not visible:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ahflh3.jpg)
-
I repeat:
The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.
-
Your question has been well-answered, Tarkus.
Also it is poor form here to tell people how they may or may not respond to you.
-
I'd also point out that the APollo 17 example you use comes from a magazine that shows the CSM in full
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?145
-
I repeat:
The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.
Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.
-
I repeat:
The SM may not be visible, thanks to the perspective of the observer, but structures attached to it are, namely the EVA floodlight boom and also in your other examples the communications antennae.
Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.
If the SM is not there, please explain the presence of structures that are attached to it.
-
"Cover your eyes is a common tactic."
Ohhh! So that's why you've refused to acknowledge the answers you've received (especially the excellent diagrams by smartcooky).
-
Tarkus,
It always amuses me how people with no knowledge of photography like to try their hand at analyzing Apollo photos without first honing their skills on, say the family photo album before tackling pictures taken on another world.
If you did so, you would find out that the anomalies you have discovered aren't anomalies at all. Like near objects in a wide angle shot obscuring objects further away from the camera.
-
Exhibit a, a CSM, cunningly disguised as a bottle of malt vinegar in my kitchen:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/6i790h.jpg)
Exhibit b, the CSM with the docking drogue (or bottle top) to one side:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/f3fhjq.jpg)
Any comments Tarkus?
-
Cover your eyes is a common tactic. Not you refute anything I've exposed. No error of perspective, if the cone is to the left, the cylinder must be visible on the right.
Oh dear...another hoaxie that cannot understand perspective distortion! While I appreciate that English is not your native language, I would also advise you to reset your attitude. You clearly have a very limited grasp on the subject matter and your approach comes across as arrogant. Given your inability to understand simple concepts, then you should realise that your arrogance (if it is that) is probably part of the reason why you are struggling to understand such simple ideas. To first learn you must realise that you do not know all the answers!
Coincidentally, I was watching this video earlier. Whilst not directly relating to the matter in hand, it has some good explanations of the problems that happens when you project a 3D world onto a 2D plane (such as a film camera).
(https://www.youtube.com/gif?v=Y2gTSjoEExc&g=1LoNKp30jJM)
This Wiki article will also help you to understand the effects of perspective distortion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29
Finally, you appear to have ignored my earlier post. For convenience, here it is again. Care to comment?
You are wrong: the only chance that the cylinder service module is invisible, it is that the cone of the capsule points directly toward the viewer ... this is clearly not the case.
And what about commenting on the other areas that you were so sure of in your original post?
- The number 13?
- The filming of Haise?
- The use of the LM motor?
- The heatshield?
Why ignore the answers that you were given on these to comment only on your erroneous interpretation of the photos of the CSM/LM stack? I wouldn't like to assume that you have now conceded the other points......I'd much rather hear you say that.
Exhibit a, a CSM, cunningly disguised as a bottle of malt vinegar in my kitchen:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/6i790h.jpg)
Exhibit b, the CSM with the docking drogue (or bottle top) to one side:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/f3fhjq.jpg)
Any comments Tarkus?
Excellent example OBM. I hope that you put that vinegar to good use on a pile of fish'n'chips soon? :D :D :D
-
Haise is holding the camera. Think 'video selfie'
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
-
tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated. You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer. In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson: you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority)
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970
Why do you think you need a cell phone to make a selfie? People have been taking pictures of themselves with cameras since they were small enough to hold in one hand and click. I've done it myself many times.
... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life,
He was using a 16mm movie camera, not a Hasselblad. The Hasselblad was the camera used to take the still images on 70mm film.
Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long,
Based on what? How much do you know about the focal length of the camera and the effect of the lens?
if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
Prove it.
-
tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated. You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer. In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson: you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority)
No, you don't get to claim it's a fallacy when the authority being appealed to is precisely the relevant one for the discussion.
-
Haise is holding the camera. Think 'video selfie'
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
Have you ever held a camera in your life? Because you're talking like someone who's had no experience with one.
-
And to address your issue with perspective, here is a model of the CSM.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/WP_20150616_17_52_24_Pro1.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/WP_20150616_17_52_24_Pro1.jpg.html)
Note the attachement of the high gain antenna at the back of the service module. Now what hapens if we move closer?
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/WP_20150616_17_52_45_Pro.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/WP_20150616_17_52_45_Pro.jpg.html)
Oh look, the cylindrical service module has disappeared, even though the conical command module is still pointing off to one side. You can see the service module is still attached because the high gain antenna is still clearly visible.
THis is basic perspective, tarkus, nothing unusual at all. The service module is still attached in your 'missing service module' pictures, you just can't see it because it is hidden by the command module from the perspective of the photographer.
-
Are you not responding properly, and please do not divert the discussion ... I repeat.:
The third post and you're already complaining, trying to moderate the thread and just repeating yourself?
You have a chance here to show your idea is correct to those who know about Apollo. All we ask right now is to answer a few questions and show the work you've done as a first step. Don't blow this chance to demonstrate the hoax you seem to believe is so self evident.
-
Only if the tip of the cone points directly to the observer CM, SM cylinder will be hidden by the capsule. Clearly not the case.
A bit of perspective geometry should be able to prove your point. Something that you should already have done to come to this conclusion. I'll give you a hint of how this works. The LM docking window is inside the perimeter of the CM base. With that information, tell us what of the SM, which is straight below the widest part of the CM, is visible from the window. Since words in translation can be a problem, a diagram would be a big help.
-
And to forestall any suggestion of trickery on those pictures, here is a video of me rotating that same CSM model.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/th_WP_20150616_18_58_16_Pro1.mp4) (http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/WP_20150616_18_58_16_Pro1.mp4)
Note that there is quite a substantial arc in which the service module is hidden simply due to perspective.
-
Excellent example OBM. I hope that you put that vinegar to good use on a pile of fish'n'chips soon? :D :D :D
That will be a lot of fish and chips. Can I come for dinner OBM?
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ...
Photographic historians consider this to be the first selfie from 1839
http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/robert-cornelius-self-portrait-the-first-ever-selfie-1839/
Not sure cell phones existed in 1839 either, but then you (or I for that matter) don't get to define selfie.
but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
Proof there was a fourth man please.
-
Excellent example OBM. I hope that you put that vinegar to good use on a pile of fish'n'chips soon? :D :D :D
That will be a lot of fish and chips. Can I come for dinner OBM?
You'd be welcome, but as a 30+ years vegetarian there wouldn't be much fish ;)
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970
And?
... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad,
No I didn't. I appreciate English is supposedly not your first language, but I clearly mentioned the word 'video'. Hassleblads don't do video.
with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long,
Based on...?
I have an idea how long Haise's arms are, I've met him.
if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
If one follows the sequence it is clear that there is no 4th man there. Haise films it himself. He also does it in other sequences.
You are deluded and sadly lacking in any kind of background education in this subject. I'd give it up if I were you.
-
SM visible:
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/AS10-27-3881.jpg)
SM not visible:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2ahflh3.jpg)
Look at the top image, and you can clearly see two of the Service Module's RCS quads.
Now look at the bottom image, at about 80 degrees clockwise from the vertical, and again around 170 clockwise from the vertical. In these locations you can see small semi-circular objects protruding outside the circle of the Command Module. I think you will find they are two of the RCS quads. This incidentally shows how close the Service Module is to being visible in these photos.
-
Haise is holding the camera. Think 'video selfie'
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
Do you know where the shutter button is on a Hasselblad?
-
3D spatial reasoning. How does that work?
tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated. You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer. In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson: you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority)
It's very simple, tarkus. You have been provided with photographic evidence, geometric evidence, logical evidence and photogrammetric evidence.
You ignore all of them. Why? Why is that? Why do you ignore the actual evidence placed right in front of you? Is it that you simply have a pseudo-religious thing going on? Is it that you don't read responses? Is it that you are experiencing some type of 3D spatial reasoning failure?
You tell me, because even only one of those reasons alone is sufficient to demonstrate that you are flat out wrong on this.
-
This "tarkus" - is it one of the usual suspects?
-
This "tarkus" - is it one of the usual suspects?
I would be willing to bet so. There are tells in the style. I have seen all of these tactics before.
Nevertheless, this is LO's house. The determination is therefore his to perform.
-
tarkus, in case it hasn't been made readily apparent to you, you are speaking to people here who have an intimate and extensive knowledge of how these spacecraft were designed and operated. You are also speaking in some cases to professional photographers who understand with similar skill how objects are seen when arranged relative to the viewer. In light of that, I agree with Jason Thompson: you are going to have to show a lot more work than simply declaring the objects in these photos must be as you say they are.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority (http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority)
It's not a case of "appeal to authority" when you are provided evidence to back up the "authority's" findings and informed opinions.
-
Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.
In many cases here, the above referenced authorities are really authorities on the maters in which they speak. Many of the others in this forum are well versed and can make arguments with reference to real authorities. That is suitable in matters in which judgement is an issue.
Unlike your issue of the "missing" CM, which could be determined geometrically by referencing existing documents. Are you up to doing what it takes to geometrically demonstrate your point? If you can, it would present quite a problem to those that accept the Apollo record. Just be aware that there are people in this forum that are quite competent in many aspect of math. So be prepared to defend your analysis.
-
Agreed. It is not a fallacious appeal to authority to consider the expertise of demonstrated experts on a specialized topic, when that expertise provides knowledge and understanding that answer the question. The "authorities" in this case are doing what experts do -- providing the relevant knowledge and judgment.
-
So far, tarkus has merely presented himself as an "expert" issuing a decree. That is the classic meaning of the fallacious appeal to authority his source brings up because tarkus is "not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument."
-
That is true; he cannot demonstrate any competence. But as with many conspiracy theorists, I doubt tarkus is able to see that or would agree with that characterization. Many conspiracy theorists understandably believe that the people they encounter on the Internet will most likely be layman such as himself, and that he can bluff and bluster accordingly. A few insinuate that there really is no such thing as expertise and that what little knowledge they may have is really no different than what others have.
The question regarding his training or experience in photographic interpretation is acute. It is not a diversion. Photographic analysis and interpretation is a formally defined field in which one can earn competence through training in the proven techniques and experience applying them. Simply looking at the photograph and saying what one thinks it depicts is not photographic interpretation as is defined by its practitioners. In short, one can certainly be incompetent at it. And since few if any conspiracy theorists can describe any of the elements in its formal body of knowledge, it's safe to say that one should be assumed to have only layman's knowledge until they substantiate or demonstrate differently.
Fallacious appeals to authority can occur in several flavors. There is the obvious one, where the actor in the appeal is not a legitimate authority. But also there is one in which the question is not actually a matter that requires expertise. On the one hand, an expert in photogrammetry can describe in those terms why the photographs in question are examples of natural perspective, and may go on to supply rigorous proof in the form of projective geometry equations showing quantitatively the answer. But on the other hand, the counter examples here in this thread are given solely in the form of photographic and practical demonstrations that are within the ken of any participant. While expertise helps us understand why a phenomenon occurs, a simple demonstration proves (without needing any expertise) that the phenomenon does occur.
-
Well, at least tarkus has 'specialised', in that most of his 'claim' is based on a total (and, frankly, embarrassing) lack of understanding of basic perspective. And I mean BASIC.
May deity help him if he ever sees the Moon Terminator 'Illusion'...
:D
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
According to the Apollo 13 Press Kit, the mission carried two 16 mm movie cameras with a selection of lens, the two widest being 5 and 10 mm. No problem at all taking a selfie with such wide-angle lens available. In addition, these cameras could be switched to run automatically, no need to keep a finger on the button, so arm length is irrelevant.
-
The third post and you're already complaining, trying to moderate the thread and just repeating yourself?
I'm really torn on the issue, should we lament the fact that the lying Hoaxers can't even hide their true (disgustingly dishonest) intentions for 10 posts, or be happy that they show themselves to be dishonest so quickly?
-
lack of understanding of basic perspective.
Given his use of "Astro-Nots" I think the problem is basic honesty.
-
The third post and you're already complaining, trying to moderate the thread and just repeating yourself?
I'm really torn on the issue, should we lament the fact that the lying Hoaxers can't even hide their true (disgustingly dishonest) intentions for 10 posts, or be happy that they show themselves to be dishonest so quickly?
The honest but misguided belief HBs are getting pretty thin these days but I try to take new members as they come. The colors of the serial HBs show up pretty quickly. It only took tarkus three posts to get diverted from his discussion start complaining. Still there is some, albeit slim, hope he will return to the point. And if he does, we can further address the misunderstandings.
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970 ... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad, with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long, if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
According to the Apollo 13 Press Kit, the mission carried two 16 mm movie cameras with a selection of lens, the two widest being 5 and 10 mm. No problem at all taking a selfie with such wide-angle lens available. In addition, these cameras could be switched to run automatically, no need to keep a finger on the button, so arm length is irrelevant.
And in the zero G environment of space, a camera could be carefulyl positioned by a skilled operator so that it would stay where it was put, pointing in the same direction with very little drift.
-
If it's a video camera, yes, but if it was a 16mm film camera, wouldn't the motor drive impart a twisting force on the camera, making it spin?
-
The question regarding his training or experience in photographic interpretation is acute. It is not a diversion. Photographic analysis and interpretation is a formally defined field in which one can earn competence through training in the proven techniques and experience applying them. Simply looking at the photograph and saying what one thinks it depicts is not photographic interpretation as is defined by its practitioners. In short, one can certainly be incompetent at it. And since few if any conspiracy theorists can describe any of the elements in its formal body of knowledge, it's safe to say that one should be assumed to have only layman's knowledge until they substantiate or demonstrate differently.
IIRC a certain HB by the name of Jack White declared himself an expert in photographic analysis when he testified before the US Congress with regards to the JFK assassination, that was until a lawyer (Goldman?) tore his testimony to shreds.
-
If it's a video camera, yes, but if it was a 16mm film camera, wouldn't the motor drive impart a twisting force on the camera, making it spin?
Ooh, that is a good point. I think that is how a reaction wheel in a satellite works. But, would such a tiny motor be sufficient to cause significant rotation of the camera
-
IIRC a certain HB by the name of Jack White declared himself an expert in photographic analysis when he testified before the US Congress with regards to the JFK assassination, that was until a lawyer (Goldman?) tore his testimony to shreds.
Jack White was an interesting character. My only contact with him was a year or two before he died. I emailed him to politely point out some problems with his analysis of the Apollo 11 EVA picture that purportedly showed the flag reflected in the window before it had been planted.
You'd think I'd insulted his mother. How dare you email me, I'm the great Jack White, how dare you question my expertise, never talk to me again!
I think he was at least a little insecure, don't you?
When he died, the following exchange went through my head:
God: Welcome to the Pearly Gates, Jack.
Jack: Hi. Can you tell me one thing?
God: What?
Jack: Who really shot JFK?
God: Lee Harvey Oswald, all by himself.
Jack: Oh my God, "they" got to you too!?
-
I had quite a few interactions with Jack White when I used to post on the education forum.
The one I remember the most was his insistence that a still photo showing the first WTC tower collapsing (dust cloud and all) was actually depicting an explosion in building 6 and that both towers were still standing. I searched through video archives from that day and found the footage his still came from and showed that it showed the tower collapsing. He still didn't acknowledge it.
Most of the other interactions were about "chemtrails". He couldn't understand how commercial airliners could fly over an airport without stopping. He had some strange idea that the restricted airspace of an airport went up to space
EVERYTHING he had an opinion about he acted as the one and only authority on it. If you dared question him then you were not only wrong but you must be paid to do so. It didn't help that there were other posters on the education forum that seemed to hang on his every word and feed that belief.
-
If it's a video camera, yes, but if it was a 16mm film camera, wouldn't the motor drive impart a twisting force on the camera, making it spin?
The sequence is from the 16mm Maurer. That camera is roughly the size of a palmcorder. At no time does Haise let go of it. He is doing a selfie then turns and floats into the LM. You can see his angle and position adjustments of the camera. The shaking is minimized due to the extremely wide angle lens used (nearly fish-eyed). The distortion of the CM and LM cabins clearly shows this. I do not know what your beef is here Tarkus. You even see Haise looking at the camera to check the direction of the lens and you can see his shoulder is positioned as his arm was extended. The lord of TV and film cameras on Apollo has spoken. I now declare the counter accusations of shills and closed mindedness open.
PS. In addition to having written two books on NASA TV/Camera technology I also get paid to do image analysis and quality control and image transmission. I do know about this kind of thing and I dare say I know more about it than most given it is my profession. See above paragraph, last sentence.
-
That wasn't tarkus asking that - but me. It was a physics question, not a hoaxer question.
-
Oops, sorry about that. I was jumping between your question and Tarkus' OP and got my responses all merged into one. And it is late. So therefore Im a boofhead. I find the original post perplexing as just because the term "selfie" is fairly recent the act of doing so has been around since cameras were invented. If the Maurer was left on its own, it would start to spin. So would the TV camera for that matter given the color wheel spinning inside it.
-
Most of the other interactions were about "chemtrails". He couldn't understand how commercial airliners could fly over an airport without stopping. He had some strange idea that the restricted airspace of an airport went up to space
I got an ADS-B receiver a while ago so I've been watching (some of) the air traffic in my area. I *often* see airplanes crossing the airport, usually at right angles to the single runway and at moderate to high altitudes. I remembered being told by pilots years ago that this was common practice because it was a one of the best places to stay out of the approach and departure paths.
Now if you want to ask me about government spy planes...
EVERYTHING he had an opinion about he acted as the one and only authority on it. If you dared question him then you were not only wrong but you must be paid to do so. It didn't help that there were other posters on the education forum that seemed to hang on his every word and feed that belief.
Exactly my impression. Was he always like this, or did he get worse in his old age? That takedown by the House assassinations committee must have hurt.
-
I got an ADS-B receiver a while ago so I've been watching (some of) the air traffic in my area. I *often* see airplanes crossing the airport, usually at right angles to the single runway and at moderate to high altitudes. I remembered being told by pilots years ago that this was common practice because it was a one of the best places to stay out of the approach and departure paths.
That reminds me of a story about a student pilot on first solo approach (I make no claims about truth or accuracy, but who wants to let the truth get in the way of a great story). This reputedly happened right here at Nelson Airport some years ago.
The student in question had been briefed to make a couple of short approaches followed by touch-and-go then after the second circuit, to execute what is known as "standard overhead" join, a manoeuvre where the aircraft crosses over the aerodrome downwind at an altitude not less than 1500 feet. At this point, the pilot would call the tower and report their tail number, "standard overhead" and their altitude, so for example..... "Nelson tower, Echo Foxtrot Sierra, Standard Overhead, 1,600 feet". They would then be cleared to execute a 180° to ~ 230° tear-drop turn to landing.
The student dutifully completed his two bump and goes as instructed then set for the overhead join. As he did so, the student (nervously) called the tower "Nelson tower, this is Echo Foxtrot Sierra, Standard Overhead, 16,000 feet".... there was a long silence before a mystery voice (probably another pilot in the circuit), popped up mimicking an American southern accent....
"Welcome home Columbia!"
-
Haise making a selfie? :o cell phones did not exist in 1970
And?
... but if what you suggest is that made a selfie with a Hasselblad,
No I didn't. I appreciate English is supposedly not your first language, but I clearly mentioned the word 'video'. Hassleblads don't do video.
with one hand and without looking at the camera because ... it's the strangest selfie I've seen in my life, Haise also must have an arm of at least 1 meter long,
Based on...?
I have an idea how long Haise's arms are, I've met him.
if one follows the sequence is clear that the scene was filmed by a fourth man, certainly in a study.
If one follows the sequence it is clear that there is no 4th man there. Haise films it himself. He also does it in other sequences.
You are deluded and sadly lacking in any kind of background education in this subject. I'd give it up if I were you.
I never saw a selfie in which the author does not look to camera, so absurd I can only laugh although I understand that you resort to such desperate answer.
-
I generally don't take selfies, but I have a series of self portraits taken when I was in photography class in high school where it was clear I was looking over the camera's left shoulder, as it were. Lord knows where the negatives and proof sheets are 40 years later, but I assure you it's not that uncommon.
Just because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
-
Here's a selfie I took while I was busy doing something more important, namely driving. The phone was in my lap, and I really shouldn't have done it, but it was open road.
(http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06/21/d07187a3d575c4c88ffb8d9e24e5dda2.jpg)
-
I never saw a selfie in which the author does not look to camera
Irrelevant to the point of ludicrousness.
Can you return to the SM visibility claim? You've been rather quiet on the subject since this excellent small scale demonstration (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=864.msg29071#msg29071) was posted.
-
I never saw a selfie in which the author does not look to camera, so absurd I can only laugh although I understand that you resort to such desperate answer.
Hmmm, who is the one sounding desperate?
-
Tarkus, if you watch the whole sequence, Haise does look at the camera at one point. So am I to understand the whole of Apollo 13 was fake because Haise didn't look at the camera (even though he clearly did)?? Wow the hoax movement has really begun to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
BTW Tarkus, type in "selfie not looking at camera" into google. That might change your never having seen a selfie not looking into the camera claim.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
-
This whole 'selfie' business is a distraction. Haise was not 'taking a selfie'. That was a term someone threw in for humour. He was holding the camera and filming the inside of the spacecraft, and he happened to get himself in shot for a short time. This is not suspicious, certainly not impossible, and all you want to do, tarkus, is complain about the words used.
How about dealing with some actual real points, such as the effect of perspective and camera position on whether or not the SM is visible?
-
all you want to do, tarkus, is complain about the words
That seems to be the gist of the presentation so far. Let's see if tarkus takes you up on the suggestion to make a real point.
-
Thank you Jason. It needed to be asked. This whole "debate" seems like a chain pull sourced from our resident mate Awe130.
-
I'm working on a response to the Apollo 16 photo "argument", but I just pulled an all-nighter at work and need to get some rest. I'll try to finish & post it tonite.
-
BTW Tarkus, type in "selfie not looking at camera" into google. That might change your never having seen a selfie not looking into the camera claim.
Yes, but that would require research, and if Tarkus could do proper research, he(?) wouldn't be a hoax believer.
-
I agree that the term 'selfie' is a distraction - I used it to convey something in simple terms any idiot could grasp.
I misjudged the target audience.
Meanwhile, I am at Glastonbury festival. I have more interesting things to do for a while :D
-
OBM, just remember to _look_ at your camera if you take a selfie, otherwise the universe might implode.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
Don't you know? Really?
It was the massive rocket (the main cost of going) that they had to build in order to fake the moon landings and not have people become suspicious about how they got there!!
(idea courtesy of the brilliant "That Mitchell and Webb Look" moon landing conspiracy sketch. If you haven't seen it, here it is
Three comedians poke the Moon landing conspiracy full of more holes than a cheese grater!!
-
Don't you know? Really?
It was the massive rocket (the main cost of going) that they had to build in order to fake the moon landings and not have people become suspicious about how they got there!!
(idea courtesy of the brilliant "That Mitchell and Webb Look" moon landing conspiracy sketch. If you haven't seen it, here it is
Three comedians poke the Moon landing conspiracy full of more holes than a cheese grater!!
A great sketch from some very funny guys.
Loons like tarkus really do believe that mountains of impeachable evidence can be hand-waved away by what they believe to be a tiny inconsistency. So the thousands of people that saw a massive great rocket taking off were all incorrect because tarkus reckons that some bloke took a "selfie" in an unusual way. Sheesh... ::)
-
Speaking of selfies, I believe Mike Collins took some video selfies while in orbit around the Moon on Apollo 11. Have a look at www.apolloarchive.com in the Apollo Multimedia section.
-
mountains of impeachable evidence
I believe you meant "unimpeachable."
-
mountains of impeachable evidence
I believe you meant "unimpeachable."
Opps...my apologies and thanks for the correction. I blame my dyslexic fingers (a terrible condition for a man of my meagre years...) :o
-
KO
-
KO
Ever hear the one about the dyslexic, insomniac, agnostic?
.
.
.
He laid awake all night wondering if there really was a dog :P
Back to the OP's original point. If you view the video you can clearly see the distortion caused by the wide-angle lens as the camera pans and moves around the cabin. Straight lines and edges appear to curve and move due to the fish-eye effect. The fact that tarkus didn't realise this, but instead jumps to the ridiculous conclusion that it was filmed by a fourth person just adds to my suspicions that tarkus has absolutely no experience with ANY form of photography. In addition, it adds to my suspicions that (s)he has very poor spatial understanding. It's no wonder that tarkus cannot work out where the SM is and why it cannot be seen.
-
I've guessed it! ME MEMEMEMEME May I?
-
Just another thought about seeing the Service Module behind the Command Module...
This video is of Apollo 10, and includes a couple of sequences of film of the CSM taken from the LM. One starts at about 13:15 and the other at about 18:45. In each case the CSM is seen from nearly head on, but the viewpoint shifts enough that you can clearly see there's something behind the Command Module.
Tarkus, over to you.
-
I forsee a flounce in your immediate future, tarkus. I'm just not sure whether you will implode in a spittle-flecked tantrum or just quietly disappear once you realise that the beliefs that you are clinging to have been debunked time and time again. Again, this behaviour has been observed many times on here.
Then again, I might be completely incorrect. You might realise that this place is a place where you can actually learn a lot of stuff- stuff that is a million times more intellectually satisfying than watching ridiculous YouTube hoax videos and going "hur-hur-hur. Stupid NASA astro-nots".
I bet that the former is more likely to happen than the latter though....
Looks like I was correct....
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1245
What a coward.
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg?w=720)
-
Ahh...so tarkus has decided to log back in.
Welcome back tarkus. Care to address any of the questions that have been directed to you?
-
Ahh...so tarkus has decided to log back in.
Welcome back tarkus. Care to address any of the questions that have been directed to you?
Don't hold your breath!!!!
-
Ahh...so tarkus has decided to log back in.
Welcome back tarkus. Care to address any of the questions that have been directed to you?
Don't hold your breath!!!!
Nah...he's stealth flounced. Logged back in once, saw that his BS had been comprehensively debunked and then was too cowardly to learn something new. Nothing worse than a closed mind. :(
-
The descent engine died during trans-earth coast. The helium burst disk blew, rendering the engine inoperative. Perhaps the ascent engine still worked? Using that would require them to jettison the descent module - and the big batteries in it.
I was not aware of this, could you provide a link? I have searched for about an hour and can't find this information. If the helium disk burst it must have after the 105 h mid course correction.
Then it may be somewhat obvious since the LM reaction control system was used for a tweak at the 137 h.
-
It is actually referred to in the Apollo 13 movie, where they don't make a big fuss about it. It was expected to happen, because the helium tank used to pressurize the fuel tanks had heat leaking into it. The burst disk is designed as the weakest point in the system, and the helium was vented through (I believe it was 2) ports in a non-propulsive way.
-
It is actually referred to in the Apollo 13 movie, where they don't make a big fuss about it. It was expected to happen, because the helium tank used to pressurize the fuel tanks had heat leaking into it. The burst disk is designed as the weakest point in the system, and the helium was vented through (I believe it was 2) ports in a non-propulsive way.
Its right after the part about Jim Lovell's TV interview where he recounts his experience with a shorted map light in a Banshee over the Sea of Japan....
JIM LOVELL (on TV pre-flight)
- Oh, well, I'll tell you, I remember this one time. I'm... I'm in a (McDonnell F2H) Banshee at night in combat conditions, so there's no running lights on the carrier. It was the Shangri-La and we were in the Sea of Japan, and my... my radar had jammed, and my homing signal was gone because somebody in Japan was actually using the same frequency and so it was... was leading me away from where I was supposed to be. And I'm looking down at that big black ocean. So... I flip on my map light. And then suddenly zap everything shorts out right there in my cockpit, all my instruments are gone, my lights are gone, I can't even tell now what my altitude is. I know I'm running out of fuel, so I'm thinking about... about ditching in the ocean and I... I look down there and then... in... in the darkness there's this... there's this green trail, it's like a long carpet that just laid out right beneath me, and it was the algae, right. It was that phosphorescent stuff that gets churned up in the wake of a big ship and it was... it was... it was just leading me home. And... if my cockpit lights hadn't shorted out, there's no way I had ever been able to see that. So a... you a... you never know what... what events are gonna transpire to get you home.
JULES BERGMAN (on TV)
- Okay. Spacecraft Commander Jim Lovell, no stranger to emergency is he.
JACK SWIGERT
- How's it going, Fred.
FRED HAISE
- I'm okay.
[EXPLOSION]
JACK SWIGERT
- What the hell was that?
JIM LOVELL
- Let's hope it was just the (helium) burst disk.
JIM LOVELL
- Houston, can you confirm a burst helium disk?
ANDY (CAPCOM - WHITE)
- We confirm that, Jim.
JIM LOVELL
- Houston, is that gonna affect our entry angle at all?
ANDY (CAPCOM - WHITE)
- Negative. Your entry angle is holding at 6.24, Aquarius.
PS: anyone know if the phosphorescent algae story is true?
-
I believe it's in his book, almost word for word.
-
I believe it's in his book, almost word for word.
I can confirm this. One detail the film omits is that the instrument lights cutting out was his fault, as a little light he made attached to his knee board overloaded the circuits.
-
OK, the story is true, but was the interview in the movie a remake of a real interview, or was it just some journalistic licence. I know that Jules Bergman was the real deal, a science reporter for ABC at the time.
-
I believe it's in his book, almost word for word.
I can confirm this. One detail the film omits is that the instrument lights cutting out was his fault, as a little light he made attached to his knee board overloaded the circuits.
I can't believe I forgot that part! That's what make the story amusing, the way he set it up.
-
OK, the story is true, but was the interview in the movie a remake of a real interview, or was it just some journalistic licence. I know that Jules Bergman was the real deal, a science reporter for ABC at the time.
Don't know. I was a huge Huntley-Brinkley/NBC News fan when I was young. I know this is heresy, but I never liked Walter Cronkite's reporting of the program. I also liked NBC's science reporter, Frank McGee. ABC always struck me as a distant third.
Besides, Gulf Oil sponsored NBC's coverage, and they had really cool commercials in those days...
-
I can confirm this. One detail the film omits is that the instrument lights cutting out was his fault, as a little light he made attached to his knee board overloaded the circuits.
I can't believe I forgot that part! That's what make the story amusing, the way he set it up.
Yeah. Though not in the first person, it's obviously a very personal story, that is both terrifying and hilarious.
-
This whole 'selfie' business is a distraction. Haise was not 'taking a selfie'. That was a term someone threw in for humour. He was holding the camera and filming the inside of the spacecraft, and he happened to get himself in shot for a short time. This is not suspicious, certainly not impossible, and all you want to do, tarkus, is complain about the words used.
How about dealing with some actual real points, such as the effect of perspective and camera position on whether or not the SM is visible?
Haise could never shoot yourself because to do so he needed to use his left arm does not move.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2rrb86x.jpg)
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
How about the photos of the lunar far side taken by the crew, together with the time and date specific images of Earth, and the extended sequences of zero gravity footage?
Have you figured out that you were wrong about the view of the CSM yet?
Oh, and Haise's arm does move. You are wrong.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
-
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
Equally, it does not prove it did not reach the moon. The fact there was a big rocket undermines Bill Kaysing's original argument that Rocketdyne were having problems with the F1 engine technology and therefore NASA had to fake the mission. It is clear that a big rocket capable of reaching the moon was built and launched, even Bill Kaysing must have realised that the evidence was stacked against his argument. It's willful ignorance on his part, and that is dishonest.
The problem being is that the CTs then shift the goalposts with arguments such as 'Well, the astronauts entered LEO and then came back to Earth' or 'the astronauts were squirreled away and the rocket launched.'
The point stands, Bill Kaysing's original argument is easily falsifiable, and the rest is just the fantasia of Percy, Sibrel and Ralph Rene.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
Tracking the vehicle leaving Earth orbit and travelling to the moon. suffices as proof that they did travel to the moon. Losing communications when they travelled around the far side of the moon, I'm sure Jodrell Observatory noticed that data drop.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.
Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?
Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??
Of course, you are right that the launch, on it's own, doesn't prove that it (or at least a part of it) went to the Moon. There are thousands of other pieces of evidence that do directly prove that man went to the Moon. If you stick around, you might even learn about some of them (though I doubt that you will stick around...this isn't YouTube after all. The natives answer back with better responses than "hur-hur-hur ;))
-
Haise could never shoot yourself because to do so he needed to use his left arm does not move.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2rrb86x.jpg)
Are you blind??? His arm is visible for a second or two and does move. Surely you're not confusing a still frame to the movie?? You can't be that stupid, can you???
-
Zakalwe - You linked the Mitchell and Web video. I was was tempted, but refrained. I never grow tired of that sketch.
-
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
Yeah.
Mr Inchargeofushoaxanonimous to NASA. Getting a bit boring, lets have an accident, you know, big it up a bit so everyone is watching.
NASA. Will more people notice we are faking it? I mean, no one is interested at the moment.
Mr Inchargeofushoaxanonimous to NASA. Nah, they are too stupid, they think it is all dealt with in the wall.
Sorry, the Stupids in charge of hoaxing?
-
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
Yeah.
Mr Inchargeofushoaxanonimous to NASA. Getting a bit boring, lets have an accident, you know, big it up a bit so everyone is watching.
NASA. Will more people notice we are faking it? I mean, no one is interested at the moment.
Mr Inchargeofushoaxanonimous to NASA. Nah, they are too stupid, they think it is all dealt with in the wall.
Sorry, the Stupids in charge of hoaxing?
It's always been my contention that if they were hoaxing the whole thing, why would they hoax a huge accident in order to draw more attention to themselves? Why would they not take advantage of waning public interest and pull the plug after 12?
If it was all hoaxed, it might make sense to stage the events of 13 and THEN pull the plug. They could have then said "it's just too dangerous to continue."
Far more plausible than staging a fake accident to bolster interest and have to fake more missions later, thereby risking exposure of the hoax.
-
Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.
Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?
Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??
Or the oxygen cloud surrounding the CSM/LM after the oxygen tank explosion seen by numerous telescopes on Earth.
...
-
Zakalwe - You linked the Mitchell and Web video. I was was tempted, but refrained. I never grow tired of that sketch.
Hehe...it's a cracker, isn't it Luke? ;D ;D ;D
-
Zakalwe - You linked the Mitchell and Web video. I was was tempted, but refrained. I never grow tired of that sketch.
Hehe...it's a cracker, isn't it Luke? ;D ;D ;D
The jabs at HB's are great.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
-
Haise could never shoot yourself because to do so he needed to use his left arm does not move.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2rrb86x.jpg)
Are you blind??? His arm is visible for a second or two and does move. Surely you're not confusing a still frame to the movie?? You can't be that stupid, can you???
Habla de estúpido quien no tiene noción de los tamaños y distancias en el espacio... ;D y cree que se puede jugar con el foco como aquí en la Tierra... ;D
Haise no puede hacerse ninguna selfie en esa secuencia, no insista, no mueve el brazo ni lo tiene extendido como para sostener la cámara, haga usted la prueba de hacerse una selfie con el antebrazo hacia abajo y después me cuenta.
-
Right. At this point it is clear that Tarkus does not believe his own baloney and has resorted to linguistic chicanery.
Appeal to mod.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
-
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions.
Including intercepting television, as reported several years ago in a Russian astronomy magazine, complete with screen shots. This requires precise pointing of directional antennas at the signal source. There is no way the Soviets could not have known where those signals were coming from.
-
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions.
Including intercepting television, as reported several years ago in a Russian astronomy magazine, complete with screen shots. This requires precise pointing of directional antennas at the signal source. There is no way the Soviets could not have known where those signals were coming from.
I didn't know they intercepted TV, but it wouldn't be all that difficult, since they knew where to point the dishes and what frequency to monitor
-
Spacefaring nations routinely publish the frequencies used by their spacecraft to prevent conflicts. Naturally this gives any technologically capable country the ability to listen in on transmissions.
-
Right. At this point it is clear that Tarkus does not believe his own baloney and has resorted to linguistic chicanery.
Appeal to mod.
I agree. He should speak French. That's a language I'm actually trying to practice.
-
Still nothing on the non-impossibility of the service module being hidden by the command module I see, tarkus.
-
Right. At this point it is clear that Tarkus does not believe his own baloney and has resorted to linguistic chicanery.
Appeal to mod.
Absolutely.
It's a way that he can maintain his position without having to confront the majority of his debaters. It's rude and smacks of intellectual cowardice. he is using language as a way of sticking his fingers in his ears and going "La La La....I'm not listening".
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
รัสเซีย สามารถติดตาม ภารกิจ อพอลโล ไปยังดวงจันทร์ ในรายละเอียดมาก และ ไม่ต้องสงสัยเลย ว่าเป็น ของพวกเขา กับความเป็นจริง. พวกเขามี บินผ่านมา
ของตัวเอง บิน รอบ ยานอวกาศ ชน แลนเดอร์, แลนเดอร์ ที่อ่อนนุ่ม, แลนด์โรเวอร์ และ ตัวอย่าง ภารกิจ กลับมา. รัสเซีย ยังทำงานใน ตัวอย่าง อพอลโล และเมื่อเทียบกับ พวกเขาด้วยการ ที่พวกเขา กลับมา.
-
我十分赞同，tarkus可能看不到的逻辑你的论点
-
我十分赞同，tarkus可能看不到的逻辑你的论点
Ek is seker hy doen nie!!
-
Ek is seker hy doen nie!!
Potrzebie! Nov shmoz ka pop!
Fred
-
Supra fundamentum harenosi sedum stulti einem ponens.
-
How about an English post, where is our Spanish friend?
-
Supra fundamentum harenosi sedum stulti einem ponens.
I did not do well with this one, but that was my choice. Spanish would have been better as my jobs have been around many Spanish speaking individuals.
-
How about an English post, where is our Spanish friend?
Han er sikkert stukket af igen, tilfreds med at have været en idiot længe nok.
-
My automatic thought was, "Of course Jay speaks Latin."
-
But I misspelled sedem.
-
But I misspelled sedem.
Close enough for the language translator.
-
Ég held að við séum í raun "taka reiðan" nú erum við ekki?
-
I speak English very well, I learn it from a book...
-
I always use Engrish as she is goodly spoke.
-
In the words of Korbin Dallas, "I only speak two languages, English and bad English!"
-
In the words of Korbin Dallas, "I only speak two languages, English and bad English!"
ROFLMAO.
-
I always use Engrish as she is goodly spoke.
Ifya gunna speak English yagodda speak it proper like wot the Queen duz!
-
ليس مترجم جوجل الكثير من المرح؟
-
ليس مترجم جوجل الكثير من المرح؟
But helpful in these situations.
-
ليس مترجم جوجل الكثير من المرح؟
But helpful in these situations.
네. 확실히.
-
Mae hyn yn hwyl.
-
But I misspelled sedem.
Yeah, I spotted that straight away. What school of Latin did you go to exactly? :P
-
wa' laH ngu' 'ar nuvpu' jIyay'.
-
Tarkus , tá tú ag dul chun leanúint ar aghaidh chun spout bruscar gan bhunús nó go bhfuil tú ag dul chun retract duit argóintí .
ETA: And if you think I am fluent in Gaelic, you are mistaken. Google translator has its uses for those that are mono-lingual. I just thought Gaelic would be an interesting slant.
-
Mae hyn yn hwyl.
More so than the rest of this thread, certainly... :)
(And yes, I did have to use google translate, but I did correctly identify the language!)
-
01010100 01100001 01110010 01101011 01110101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01110011 01110111 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110001 01110101 01100101 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01000101 01101110 01100111 01101100 01101001 01110011 01101000 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011 00101110
-
01010100 01100001 01110010 01101011 01110101 01110011 00101100 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100101 01100001 01110011 01100101 00100000 01100001 01101110 01110011 01110111 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01110001 01110101 01100101 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110000 01110101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101100 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01000101 01101110 01100111 01101100 01101001 01110011 01101000 00101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011 00101110
Interesting language, I wonder what it could be used for? ::)
-
wa' laH ngu' 'ar nuvpu' jIyay'.
Ah, but have you read Hamlet in the Original Klingon?
-
No, though I was surprised to find there actually is such a thing...
-
AE189 DD234 EABCF 349AC 123FD 12FFA
-
AE189 DD234 EABCF 349AC 123FD 12FFA
Pushing or popping?
-
Ich glaube* ich muss auch etwas mitmachen. Es ist eigentlich schade das wir noch nicht über Fernsehentechnik gesprochen haben. Da bin ich in mein Element. Und weil ich jetzt gerade Hochdeutsch schreibt, bedeutet es nicht so für immer und ewig. Ich kann auch auf plattdeutsch schreiben falls es euch gefählt.
*obwohl Glauben ist für die Kirche.
-
But I misspelled sedem.
Obligatory:
-
arkusTay oesnday'tay owknay atwhay ehay isyay alkingtay aboutyay.
-
arkusTay oesnday'tay owknay atwhay ehay isyay alkingtay aboutyay.
Onay hitsay, Herlocksay! ::)
-
wa' laH ngu' 'ar nuvpu' jIyay'.
Ah, but have you read Hamlet in the Original Klingon?
And the operas are great too.
-
Mongolian next. That'll look interesting.
-
Tarkus , tá tú ag dul chun leanúint ar aghaidh chun spout bruscar gan bhunús nó go bhfuil tú ag dul chun retract duit argóintí .
ETA: And if you think I am fluent in Gaelic, you are mistaken. Google translator has its uses for those that are mono-lingual. I just thought Gaelic would be an interesting slant.
I'm not fluent, but I knew the first two words!
-
wa' laH ngu' 'ar nuvpu' jIyay'.
Ah, but have you read Hamlet in the Original Klingon?
And the operas are great too.
MELOOOTA!
-
wa' laH ngu' 'ar nuvpu' jIyay'.
Ah, but have you read Hamlet in the Original Klingon?
And the operas are great too.
MELOOOTA!
That's gonna irritate the fat Ferengi...
-
It ain't over 'till The Nagus sings...
-
Shakespeare is expensive in Klingon.. :o
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hamlet-Prince-Denmark-Restored-Klingon/dp/0964434512
Must be something to do with P&P from Kronos. :)
-
Tarkus , tá tú ag dul chun leanúint ar aghaidh chun spout bruscar gan bhunús nó go bhfuil tú ag dul chun retract duit argóintí .
ETA: And if you think I am fluent in Gaelic, you are mistaken. Google translator has its uses for those that are mono-lingual. I just thought Gaelic would be an interesting slant.
Technically, since you are addressing Tarkus by name, you need to add a vocative particle, making it "A Tarkus" (similar to English "O Tarkus"). If Tarkus were a Gaelic name, you'd also have to lenit the first letter of the name, and "slenderize" the end, turning it into "A Tharkuis!" and throwing the pronunciation completely out of the ring. However, this is generally not done if the name isn't Gaelic to begin with. This is probably because non-Gaelic people would never answer when called by a Gaelic speaker. "Who is this Vary person you're calling for? My name's Mary!"
This is about all I can remember from my two years of Gaelic night classes.
-
Tarkus , tá tú ag dul chun leanúint ar aghaidh chun spout bruscar gan bhunús nó go bhfuil tú ag dul chun retract duit argóintí .
ETA: And if you think I am fluent in Gaelic, you are mistaken. Google translator has its uses for those that are mono-lingual. I just thought Gaelic would be an interesting slant.
Technically, since you are addressing Tarkus by name, you need to add a vocative particle, making it "A Tarkus" (similar to English "O Tarkus"). If Tarkus were a Gaelic name, you'd also have to lenit the first letter of the name, and "slenderize" the end, turning it into "A Tharkuis!" and throwing the pronunciation completely out of the ring. However, this is generally not done if the name isn't Gaelic to begin with. This is probably because non-Gaelic people would never answer when called by a Gaelic speaker. "Who is this Vary person you're calling for? My name's Mary!"
This is about all I can remember from my two years of Gaelic night classes.
There are times like this that make me happy to be an English speaker.
-
There are times like this that make me happy to be an English speaker.
Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:
rough
bough
through
trough
dough
-
There are times like this that make me happy to be an English speaker.
Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:
rough
bough
through
trough
dough
Many "rules" that other languages may/may not have. And then you add in regional slang even confuses the issue more.
-
Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:
rough
bough
through
trough
dough
Americans get a lot of their English pronunciations wrong, being in telecommunications the one that really winds me up is router. It is the word route with an r (root-er) at the end, the way Americans say it, (row-ter) it's an instrument for channelling grooves in wood.
-
Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:
rough
bough
through
trough
dough
Americans get a lot of their English pronunciations wrong, being in telecommunications the one that really winds me up is router. It is the word route with an r (root-er) at the end, the way Americans say it, (row-ter) it's an instrument for channelling grooves in wood.
That's 'cuz we speak 'Mericun, not English! ;)
-
Americans get a lot of their English pronunciations wrong, being in telecommunications the one that really winds me up is router. It is the word route with an r (root-er) at the end, the way Americans say it, (row-ter) it's an instrument for channelling grooves in wood.
I saw a very interesting programme by pretentious knob erudite thinker Melvyn Bragg on the English language.
He suggested (not sure if it was his idea or other scholars) that actually American English is closer to the original British English as brought over by the Pilgrim Fathers with their spelling of such words as 'color',' labor' and 'center', the use of 'z' instead of 's', 'Fall' instead of Autumn and so on. During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
-
Americans get a lot of their English pronunciations wrong, being in telecommunications the one that really winds me up is router. It is the word route with an r (root-er) at the end, the way Americans say it, (row-ter) it's an instrument for channelling grooves in wood.
I saw a very interesting programme by pretentious knob erudite thinker Melvyn Bragg on the English language.
He suggested (not sure if it was his idea or other scholars) that actually American English is closer to the original British English as brought over by the Pilgrim Fathers with their spelling of such words as 'color',' labor' and 'center', the use of 'z' instead of 's', 'Fall' instead of Autumn and so on. During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
Do older books and manuscripts of the same era(1600-1700) indicate this or is it a pipe dream?
-
I saw a very interesting programme by pretentious knob erudite thinker Melvyn Bragg on the English language.
He suggested (not sure if it was his idea or other scholars) that actually American English is closer to the original British English as brought over by the Pilgrim Fathers with their spelling of such words as 'color',' labor' and 'center', the use of 'z' instead of 's', 'Fall' instead of Autumn and so on. During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
Melvyn Bragg and the other one Alan Wicker, what Sundays used to be all about in the UK.. :)
-
I saw a very interesting programme by pretentious knob erudite thinker Melvyn Bragg on the English language.
He suggested (not sure if it was his idea or other scholars) that actually American English is closer to the original British English as brought over by the Pilgrim Fathers with their spelling of such words as 'color',' labor' and 'center', the use of 'z' instead of 's', 'Fall' instead of Autumn and so on. During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
Melvyn Bragg and the other one Alan Wicker, what Sundays used to be all about in the UK.. :)
In the late 1970's, Alan Whicker did a TV Commercial and product endorsement for Air New Zealand, associated with their DC-10 fleet. Whicker's face was plastered up on billboards throughout NZ. The TV commercial featured Carly Simon's "Nobody Does It Better" (which was also a Bond movie theme IIRC).
Unfortunately, Air New Zealand then showed how well they did it by flying one of their DC-10s into a mountain in Antarctica, and to add insult, proceeded to cover up the reasons why it happened by employing what Judge Mahon was to later call "an orchestrated littany of lies"
I don't think Alan Whicker ever promoted another product after that.
-
arkusTay oesnday'tay owknay atwhay ehay isyay alkingtay aboutyay.
Onay hitsay, Herlocksay! ::)
Ytray againway, Atsonway. :o
-
There are times like this that make me happy to be an English speaker.
Try explaining to a new English speaker why the following words are all pronounced differently:
rough
bough
through
trough
dough
One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"
I'll leave it y'all to look up.
-
Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.
No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach, impresses to give a good show but nothing more.
Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?
Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??
Of course, you are right that the launch, on it's own, doesn't prove that it (or at least a part of it) went to the Moon. There are thousands of other pieces of evidence that do directly prove that man went to the Moon. If you stick around, you might even learn about some of them (though I doubt that you will stick around...this isn't YouTube after all. The natives answer back with better responses than "hur-hur-hur ;))
The individual testimonies can be arranged with money, 9/11 is full of false witness, prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.
I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.
-
Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.
No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach, impresses to give a good show but nothing more.
Why would you think that it didn't go to the Moon. Have you done any analysis of the launch velocity, for example?
How can you reconcile that the cisLunar fuel dumps were seen (and photographed) by independent observers-namely amateur astronomers in England?
Its a start acknowledging that a big rocket took off though. I wonder if you have seen this comedy sketch on your extensive YouTube research??
Of course, you are right that the launch, on it's own, doesn't prove that it (or at least a part of it) went to the Moon. There are thousands of other pieces of evidence that do directly prove that man went to the Moon. If you stick around, you might even learn about some of them (though I doubt that you will stick around...this isn't YouTube after all. The natives answer back with better responses than "hur-hur-hur ;))
The individual testimonies can be arranged with money, 9/11 is full of false witness, prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.
I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.
You are going to need to prove anything you say about Apollo. Just waving your hands and saying you don't believe is not going to impress anyone.
-
One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"
I'll leave it y'all to look up.
Actually it's spelled The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough, a collection of early humor articles and illustrations by one Theodor S. Geisel. Although the Chrome spell checker doesn't like "plough."
Darn it, why don't we have spoiler tags in this board?
Fred
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity). I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity). I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Just because YOU can't figure out how it worked doesn't mean it didn't.
Reality is not defined by your lack of comprehension.
-
Your lack of seeing spacecraft touch down under rocket power on earth does not prove anything. Except again you don't know what you are talking about. To have a spacecraft do that, you need:
Much more rocket power, because of gravity is greater.
Much more computing power, because of atmosphere and wind.
Much more fuel, because gravity is greater - and rocket power is greater.
Much bigger fueltanks because - you guessed it - gravity is greater.
Much more rocket power because more fuel needs to be carried.
Much more rocket power because bigger fuel tanks are heavier.
Much bigger fuel tanks because much more fuel is heavier.
Kind of bites it's own tail, doesn't it?
Not to mention the need for external aerodynamic cladding and movable surfaces to steer with. More mass, more rocket power, more fuel, more mass, more rocket power, more fuel, more ........
Landing a rocketpowered craft from orbital velocity or extra-orbital velocity (as a moon return trajectory) won't be possible.
Face it: Landing using only rocket power is only possible on an airless body. Like the moon. Even the mars missions use heatshields and parachutes to dump the energy before powered landing.
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity). I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Actually5 surveyors landed successfully, Surveyor III was visited by the Apollo 12 crew and several pieces of the craft were returned with the A12 crew. The pieces were studied for environmental impact of the nearly 3 years on the lunar surface. All the Surveyors, help the program with studies of the surface regolith.
-
No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach
Actually it does. Bigger rockets carry more fuel, and therefore have bigger engines and can carry bigger payloads longer distances.
The individual testimonies can be arranged with money
The problem with arranging paid testimony (quite aside for the fact that some people simply cannot be bought) is that you will find you have to keep paying, and paying, and paying in case they get a better offer.
If you believe that the US Government paid (and is still paying) 400,000+ people to keep quiet about Apollo then you are living in la-la land. Someone would have talked. FFS they couldn't even keep Watergate quiet, and only a few people knew about that. Many years later, only two people knew that the President was playing hide the sausage with a White House usher; the President and the usher, and they couldn't keep that quiet either.
-
This thread is really funny to read. Talking about biting his own tail Allen.
Every time tarkus posts, he reveals a little more of his complete ignorance on almost every subject he claims to be knowledgeable in... rather like The Blunder in some ways. Every time he his challenged to back up his outrageous claims, he make up an answer out of whole cloth, and then makes another, even more outrageous claim.
Tarkus me old China, its time to stop digging!!!
-
This thread is really funny to read. Talking about biting his own tail Allen.
Every time tarkus posts, he reveals a little more of his complete ignorance on almost every subject he claims to be knowledgeable in... rather like The Blunder in some ways. Every time he his challenged to back up his outrageous claims, he make up an answer out of whole cloth, and then makes another, even more outrageous claim.
Tarkus me old China, its time to stop digging!!!
Not to inflate anything the Blunder does, but at least he tries.
-
One of my favorite book titles is "The Tuff Cuffs As He Pluffs The Duff"
I'll leave it y'all to look up.
Actually it's spelled The Tough Coughs as He Ploughs the Dough, a collection of early humor articles and illustrations by one Theodor S. Geisel. Although the Chrome spell checker doesn't like "plough."
Darn it, why don't we have spoiler tags in this board?
Fred
Fred - yep, it's spelled correctly, with a great Geisel cartoon on the dust jacket, but I wanted to go phonetic here. There's a story in the book about "Quality" that I wish I could make mandatory reading for every MBA candidate in the country.
My one claim to academic fame is that I was one of 300 or so graduating students that got to hear the briefest, most insightful commencement addresses ever, delivered by the late, great Dr. Suess.
-
...the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space?
The descent motors weren't for maneuvering in space. They were for landing.
...see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
Mocking things you don't understand doesn't make you smart.
We must accept by faith...
No. Some of us have professional qualifications and experience those fields. We don't have faith; we have knowledge. Don't insult us with your ignorance.
...that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer...
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth...
How many submarines have you seen operate on land? Try to work out how absurd your expectations are.
then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
By knowing how they work. Your abject ignorance and assiduous ineducability doesn't matter.
-
...time to open a thread about it.
Learn something first. Recitations of your incompetence are unconvincing.
-
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
The joke is that you have just demonstrated how little you know about the SUrveyor missions.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity).
Nope, we must accept that they did that, because they did, and your complete lack of knowledge in yet another field of human endeavour is no proof that anything different happened.
I do not think so,
Well that's just tough...
I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Don't translate "I" to "we". You've demonstrated time and again that you are completely ignorant of anything on which you claim to have expertise, so your belief doesn't really count for anything. Prove it's impossible.
-
Mae hyn yn hwyl.
Sí. Oui. Ja. Да. Vâng. はい。Oo. Tak. 是。Kyllä. Ναι. हाँ।
-
The individual testimonies can be arranged with money
You know what else can be arranged with money? Building stuff to go to the Moon. A lot of money was very visibly spent on Apollo, so how much more do you think was needed to pay off every single person involved to keep quiet? Why do you think every single person involved would accept such a payout to lie rather than exposing the fraud? Are you that easily bought?
prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.
The ability to draw conclusions requires the ability to understand what you are watching. So far you have not demonstrated any ability to do so. For example, what have you to say about the demonstrations on this thread that your claim about the 'missing' service module in the Apollo 13 pictures is wrong?
I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.
You have questions outstanding in your existing threads. Answer them, or must we conclude that opening a new thread instead is a concession that you actually cannot address those questions?
Just from me, the outstanding questions on both threads are:
Why have you not addressed the demonstrations regarding the visibility of the service module?
If Earth appears to be 2 degrees across from 400,000km away, how big would it appear to be from 800,000km away?
-
During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
Zing! Accusing the Brits of being corrupted by the French! That's gotta hurt.
-
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space?
You know, all you have to do is a little reading and you'd have your answer. You don't even have to get deep into the many technical reports openly published on Surveyor by NASA; it's right in the Press Kit distributed to the media and the public before the launch.
If you'd read it, you'd know that attitude control in space was performed with pairs of nitrogen gas jets on the ends of each leg, pointed in opposite directions. Midcourse corrections were performed with a separate set of larger bipropellant "vernier" engines that could be rapidly turned on and off to control average thrust and thereby provide pitch and roll control. One of the vernier engines was on a swivel to control yaw attitude. These same vernier engines were used for the final landing after the big solid-fuel retrorocket was fired and jettisoned.
All you have to do is read and you'd have your answers. But you have to actually want them.
-
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke...
Which ones? All of them? Either way, why didn't the losers demonstrate the winners had faked it? If the Soviets faked sending a spacecraft to the Moon, why didn't the Americans prove the fakery? That would have been a huge propaganda coup at the height of the Cold War.
Or is the Cold War a fake to you too?
...there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
Others have already pointed out your ignorance, so I'll leave that.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity).
No. Other countries had the ability to track spacecraft. If you watch the TV series "The Planets" you'll find the British tracked a Soviet spacecraft to the Moon. Even private individuals were able to obtain signals from Apollo spacecraft at the Moon: Google the name Sven Grahn.
Then there's the evidence the Apollo astronauts brought back from the Moon - the rocks - which have been examined by scientists from around the world, almost certainly including whichever country you call home. All of them accept that these rocks are genuinely from the Moon and were retrieved from there by astronauts.
I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Again, others have pointed out the error of your theorising. Designing a spacecraft to land on the Earth is very different from designing a spacecraft to land on the Moon. Testing a lunar landing by trying to land it on the Earth makes no sense.
-
Ah, good. At least you acknowledge that a big rocket took off. A rocket that was big enough to get to the Moon.
No, the size of a rocket does not demonstrate its reach, impresses to give a good show but nothing more.
True. But the Saturn V has been used as a basis for study by rocket engineers around the world for decades. If you think it was a fake in some way, don't you think the people who designed Ariane would have noticed? Or the Japanese or Indians or Chinese or Israelis or even North Koreans, all of whom have sent rockets into space? What incentive do they have to keep quiet?
The individual testimonies can be arranged with money, 9/11 is full of false witness, prefer watching photos and videos, and draw my own conclusions.
I do not believe in the moon landings for many reasons, it would be long to describe here, but hopefully next week me time to open a thread about it.
Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?
-
Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
-
Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
And the zap pits on the exposed surfaces.
-
Going completely off topic now, the evolution of languages can be fascinating. Ever notice that Shakespeare seems to get a lot of rhymes wrong? That's because, in his day, the words did rhyme. The pronunciation that his actors would have used would have been far from the standard "received pronunciation" that the Royal Shakespeare Company uses - it has been described as "sexy pirate".
Which, incidentally, is one reason for the Hollywood "pirate" accent. Apparently, the old pronunciations lingered in outflung areas like Cornwall long after the modern accents became the rage in London. Cornwall is where many British sailors came from in the age of piracy. So, the "arrrh!" accent is not just a Hollywood oddity. It's actually close to the way pirates like Long John Silver would have spoken.
That Hollywood got it approximately right quite boggles my mind.
-
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...
-
That Hollywood got it approximately right quite boggles my mind.
Coincidence, in fact. The most famous Long John Silver, Robert Newton, was born in Dorset. His "pirate voice" was just an exaggeration of his actual accent.
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
Actually, sometimes I'd rather do without. I'm still arguing with my toaster's microprocessor as to the right settings for bagels vs. English muffins. The old rheostat-based one seemed to do better...
-
The functions of the CSM deemed most critical (e.g., ELS, pyros) were not implemented using digital controls but in fact used the older relay logic. As in physical relays. This was because despite what we would consider today to be problems with that technology, it was -- at that time -- well understood and, when properly engineered, considered very reliable.
-
The functions of the CSM deemed most critical (e.g., ELS, pyros) were not implemented using digital controls but in fact used the older relay logic. As in physical relays. This was because despite what we would consider today to be problems with that technology, it was -- at that time -- well understood and, when properly engineered, considered very reliable.
Only errant solder bits causing problems, if my memory is correct.
EDIT: Changed adjective
-
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretti nasti...
Note to self - try not to laugh while drinking hot liquids. Ow.
-
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
We went round that buoy on another thread, and given your arguments I have dropped that one. That reflects this board - we are prepared to drop arguments. The CTs generally do not, and when they do they tend to do so ungracefully - Jarrah's 1.5 x 0.5 = 1 case being the most obvious.
-
Note to self - try not to laugh while drinking hot liquids. Ow.
I did that at work the other day during a break, with the break room full of colleagues. Most embarrassing.
-
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
We went round that buoy on another thread, and given your arguments I have dropped that one. That reflects this board - we are prepared to drop arguments. The CTs generally do not, and when they do they tend to do so ungracefully - Jarrah's 1.5 x 0.5 = 1 case being the most obvious.
Disregarding the fact it came from the Blunder, I don't remember this one. What was he attempting to prove?
-
That the video of astronauts walking on the moon were slowed down.
i.e. The videos were at half speed so to get them up to a rate to show that they were shot at normal speed, the blunder said that you had to increase the speed by 50%.. :o
-
During and after the French revolution, high society on London became infatuated with their new found French aristocrat asylum seekers and adopted more French ways of spelling.
Zing! Accusing the Brits of being corrupted by the French! That's gotta hurt.
Happened in 1066.
-
Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.
That is a top geologist, is he mistaken?
-
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.
That is a top geologist, is he mistaken?
it is clear that he is on the NASA payroll for disinformation. ::) Quick send this to the Blunder so that he may use it for his next series on moon rocks.
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
I'm not sure about the crystallization but the lunar volcanic glass beads are generally more spherical than their Earth cousins due to the low gravity cooling.
-
I'm sure that Dalhousie will jump in, but the initial debate stemmed from the premise that convection currents in the rocks show that the rocks were formed in low gravity. So people above are correct about the origin of debate. I understand that Dalhousie is well connected in the field of lunar geology, and assures us that we can dismiss this argument.
I defer to Dalhousie's knowledge and conversations with those that have more expertise in the area. In any case, there is plenty of evidence that supports the rocks being of lunar origin.
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
I'm not sure about the crystallization but the lunar volcanic glass beads are generally more spherical than their Earth cousins due to the low gravity cooling.
Do you have a source for this? I can think of many factors that will effect sphericity, such as flight time, viscosity, droplet size, cooling rate. Gravity will at most be one factor for some of these (e.g. flight time).
-
Okay then, what about the scientists from around the world who have examined Apollo rocks? They universally agree that the Apollo rocks show signs of having formed in a low-gravity vacuum, and of being exposed to varying extents to the solar wind. These are features which simply can not be created on Earth. As far as the scientists are concerned, the Apollo rocks are rocks genuinely from the Moon. What do thousands of scientists from around the world have to gain by agreeing to go along with a NASA fake?
There is absolutely no doubt that the Apollo samples are from the Moon but I wish people would not keep repeating the false claim you can tell they formed in a low gravity environment.
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity.
That is a top geologist, is he mistaken?
He is correct but it is not evidence that it formed in a lower gravity environment. It is consistent with being from the Moon where there is essentially no oxygen and very little water (in most places).
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
I'm not sure about the crystallization but the lunar volcanic glass beads are generally more spherical than their Earth cousins due to the low gravity cooling.
Do you have a source for this? I can think of many factors that will effect sphericity, such as flight time, viscosity, droplet size, cooling rate. Gravity will at most be one factor for some of these (e.g. flight time).
Short answer it was in a video, where a geologist is measuring the gasses within the beads, and he was describing the spherical nature, however I did not bookmark it, looking currently.
EDIT:
I can see your other factors with cooling rate seemingly a dominant characteristic causing the spherical nature.
-
I'd like to see it if you can find it, otherwise, no worries.
-
Happened in 1066.
Indeed. As a Yank, I am always amused by the never-ending British-French rivalry whenever I visit either of those two countries. At least it's no longer violent (usually), which is why we can now chuckle about it.
A few months ago I finally got the chance to ride the Chunnel from London to Paris, and while the trip itself is downright anticlimactic I couldn't help but think how dramatic a change it represents in the long history between those two countries. Not so long ago it was unthinkable not only technically but also politically without one country conquering the other. Yet now it's a joint commercial venture, and you see lots of cars and trucks from the Continent on UK roads, and I'm sure the reverse is also true. It really has changed Europe.
So I'm still kinda amazed that the French celebrate this "Napoleon" guy so much. I bet they do it just to annoy the Brits. Yet they can be genuinely thin-skinned about it, such as when the Belgians issued a Euro coin celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. While I'm sure the French have summertime "pops" concerts just like the Yanks and the Brits, something tells me they don't usually play "Wellington's Victory" or the "1812 Overture"....
-
He is correct but it is not evidence that it formed in a lower gravity environment. It is consistent with being from the Moon where there is essentially no oxygen and very little water (in most places).
IANAG (I Am Not A Geologist) but I do understand the basic physics so I think it must be about the effect gravity has on whether the flight time of molten ejecta from an impact is long enough to solidify before hitting the ground.
A primary impact involves an object not already part of the moon; it always hits at (or usually well above) escape velocity. A secondary impact is ejecta from another impact that returns to the surface; it always hits at less than escape velocity. Determine the impact direction and energy of a secondary impactor and you can estimate its impact velocity and therefore its time of flight in the known low lunar gravity. The models simply wouldn't work so well for so many samples unless you assume lunar gravity, so that's the evidence they were formed in a low gravity environment.
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
"Okay, here's my question. Would you like some toast?"
-
He is correct but it is not evidence that it formed in a lower gravity environment. It is consistent with being from the Moon where there is essentially no oxygen and very little water (in most places).
IANAG (I Am Not A Geologist) but I do understand the basic physics so I think it must be about the effect gravity has on whether the flight time of molten ejecta from an impact is long enough to solidify before hitting the ground.
A primary impact involves an object not already part of the moon; it always hits at (or usually well above) escape velocity. A secondary impact is ejecta from another impact that returns to the surface; it always hits at less than escape velocity. Determine the impact direction and energy of a secondary impactor and you can estimate its impact velocity and therefore its time of flight in the known low lunar gravity. The models simply wouldn't work so well for so many samples unless you assume lunar gravity, so that's the evidence they were formed in a low gravity environment.
That is one explanation. Although many of the glass beads (some of the green and all of orange AFAIR) are linked to fire fountains rather than impacts.
Impacts do generate small glass beads on earth, we call them microtektites, or impact spherules in older rocks. These are almost always spherical, sometimes dumbells or other shapes, and have had experienced substantial flight times. The Australalite microtekite field extends to Antarctica from an as-yet undiscovered impact in SE Asia.
For fire fountains the longer the time they are in flight the more likely the glass droplets will form spherical shapes. Obviously at lower gravity (e.g. the Moon) they will be thrown higher and fall slower than given the same impetus on Earth.
However the height of the fire fountain is driven by the rate of degassing (again AFAIR) and the amount of dissolved gas, which is highly variable on Earth and (I assume) the Moon. This will also vary according to the gas, on Earth it is H2O and CO2, on the Moon mostly CO. So we can't assume that lunar beads will have spent more time in flight.
Cooling rates are also important. All glass beads cool quickly, as indicated by the fact they are glass. However Lunar lavas probably at higher temperatures than terrestrial ones, so would cool slower, I suspect. They are also in vacuum or at least low pressure, so will cool differently to beads.
The more viscous the lava the slower it would assume a spherical shape, so as most terrestrial lavas are more SiO2 rich (and thus more viscous) than lunar ones, they are more likely to be frozen into less regular shapes.
So there are many factors, gravity being just one of them.
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
Indeed. And one would expect large magma bodies in a gravity field to convect.
However an actual textural or chemical imprint of convection as opposed to other types of currents on a rock formed in such a body is (AFAIR) difficult to see and controversial. We do see clear evidence (both geochemical and textural) of magmatic differentiation via crystal settling (occasionally floating) in many coarse-grained igneous rocks on Earth and from the Moon (the anorthosites being one example).
However you don't need much gravity to set this in motion. The HED meteorite family, thought to be from Vesta, show differentiation and Vesta is only 525 km across, and gravity is only 2.5% Earth's.
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
Actually, sometimes I'd rather do without. I'm still arguing with my toaster's microprocessor as to the right settings for bagels vs. English muffins. The old rheostat-based one seemed to do better...
Howdy doodly doo!
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
Actually, sometimes I'd rather do without. I'm still arguing with my toaster's microprocessor as to the right settings for bagels vs. English muffins. The old rheostat-based one seemed to do better...
Howdy doodly doo!
Haven't you been AWOL? If so, WB.
-
Happened in 1066.
Indeed. As a Yank, I am always amused by the never-ending British-French rivalry whenever I visit either of those two countries. At least it's no longer violent (usually), which is why we can now chuckle about it.
A few months ago I finally got the chance to ride the Chunnel from London to Paris, and while the trip itself is downright anticlimactic I couldn't help but think how dramatic a change it represents in the long history between those two countries. Not so long ago it was unthinkable not only technically but also politically without one country conquering the other. Yet now it's a joint commercial venture, and you see lots of cars and trucks from the Continent on UK roads, and I'm sure the reverse is also true. It really has changed Europe.
So I'm still kinda amazed that the French celebrate this "Napoleon" guy so much. I bet they do it just to annoy the Brits. Yet they can be genuinely thin-skinned about it, such as when the Belgians issued a Euro coin celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. While I'm sure the French have summertime "pops" concerts just like the Yanks and the Brits, something tells me they don't usually play "Wellington's Victory" or the "1812 Overture"....
The original London terminus of Eurostar was at Waterloo station, originally named for the landmark battle. There were some complaints from the French that this was a deliberate insult.
Of course, it was because Waterloo was the only station at the time when an international terminal was remotely feasible. It wasn't until 15 years later with the construction of a brand new mainline from Kent to London that the terminus was moved to St Pancras.
-
I'm no geologist (or a selenologist), but it makes sense to me we should be able to see some signs. Crystallization is connected to convection (hence the experiments in free fall with virus and protein crystallization (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11541085)), and convection is affected by gravity. Mind you, I may be talking out of my ass, so feel free to call me on my ignorance. This is more or less me piecing together the fragmented bits of what I know and hoping to come up with something plausible.
This was the explanation given to me on a Skeptics email list by a geologist as one of the reasons we could be sure that the Apollo rocks came from the Moon. That's why I've continued to use it in statements to HBs.
However, if Dalhousie thinks it's inappropriate, then I'll stop.
-
The original London terminus of Eurostar was at Waterloo station, originally named for the landmark battle. There were some complaints from the French that this was a deliberate insult.
Of course, it was because Waterloo was the only station at the time when an international terminal was remotely feasible. It wasn't until 15 years later with the construction of a brand new mainline from Kent to London that the terminus was moved to St Pancras.
Yes, a British friend who takes the Eurostar regularly to Paris told me that just before HS-1 and St Pancras opened, he arrived in Paris to see a large banner, in English: NO MORE WATERLOO.
-
The original London terminus of Eurostar was at Waterloo station, originally named for the landmark battle. There were some complaints from the French that this was a deliberate insult.
Of course, it was because Waterloo was the only station at the time when an international terminal was remotely feasible. It wasn't until 15 years later with the construction of a brand new mainline from Kent to London that the terminus was moved to St Pancras.
Yes, a British friend who takes the Eurostar regularly to Paris told me that just before HS-1 and St Pancras opened, he arrived in Paris to see a large banner, in English: NO MORE WATERLOO.
Rather touchy about this battle weren't they?
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
"Okay, here's my question. Would you like some toast?"
I resent the implication that I am a one-dimensional bread-obsessed character. ;)
-
The original London terminus of Eurostar was at Waterloo station, originally named for the landmark battle. There were some complaints from the French that this was a deliberate insult.
Of course, it was because Waterloo was the only station at the time when an international terminal was remotely feasible. It wasn't until 15 years later with the construction of a brand new mainline from Kent to London that the terminus was moved to St Pancras.
Yes, a British friend who takes the Eurostar regularly to Paris told me that just before HS-1 and St Pancras opened, he arrived in Paris to see a large banner, in English: NO MORE WATERLOO.
Rather touchy about this battle weren't they?
Maybe they just weren't going to play ABBA any more...
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
"Okay, here's my question. Would you like some toast?"
I resent the implication that I am a one-dimensional bread-obsessed character. ;)
Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite... would you like a toasted teacake?
-
Irrelevant. Computers are not the be-all and end-all of technology. We did (and still do) many things without computers.
And we do things with computers today that we did just fine (or at least well enough) without. My toaster is equipped with a microprocessor. That doesn't mean toast was a hoax in the 1960s.
"Okay, here's my question. Would you like some toast?"
I resent the implication that I am a one-dimensional bread-obsessed character. ;)
Given that God is infinite, and that the universe is also infinite... would you like a toasted teacake?
That's another bready question, isn't it? ;)
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity). I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Actually5 surveyors landed successfully, Surveyor III was visited by the Apollo 12 crew and several pieces of the craft were returned with the A12 crew. The pieces were studied for environmental impact of the nearly 3 years on the lunar surface. All the Surveyors, help the program with studies of the surface regolith.
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
-
...time to open a thread about it.
Learn something first. Recitations of your incompetence are unconvincing.
you are only a crude ad hominem burp machine.
-
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
You really don't know anything do you?
The TV images from Surveyor are easily found on the internet, and if you can be bothered you can buy actual copies of the reports - like the copies I have.
Probes travel with TV cameras. Get over it. Ranger probes transmitted their images using TV. Russian probes transmitted their images using TVs. Many modern ones do the same - like China's.
If nothing will convince you, why are you bothering to post here?
-
Tarkus, so your claim is that Apollo 13 didn't happen as described. So what did happen then?
What took off on April 13th 1970? Or are you claiming that the launch was fake? The whole mission was fake? What exactly?
What it was a rocket took off, and it was filmed, but that does not prove that the rocket reached the moon.
What about tracking? How do you account for that?
¿Seguimiento dice? si se refiere al seguimiento de los rusos, ellos no enviaron ninguna sonda para espiar los alunizajes... simplemente eligieron aceptar la derrota en silencio, como quien cree por fe.
They didn't send any spy probe because they had the ability to actually track the Apollo missions. That ability includes from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. How else would they have been able to land their own lunar landers including the 2 Lunokhod's.
Now explain the other 3rd party evidence that confirms the landings were real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity). I do not think so, I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Actually5 surveyors landed successfully, Surveyor III was visited by the Apollo 12 crew and several pieces of the craft were returned with the A12 crew. The pieces were studied for environmental impact of the nearly 3 years on the lunar surface. All the Surveyors, help the program with studies of the surface regolith.
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras-, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
Where did you dream this on up?
-
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
You really don't know anything do you?
The TV images from Surveyor are easily found on the internet, and if you can be bothered you can buy actual copies of the reports - like the copies I have.
Probes travel with TV cameras. Get over it. Ranger probes transmitted their images using TV. Russian probes transmitted their images using TVs. Many modern ones do the same - like China's.
If nothing will convince you, why are you bothering to post here?
Obvious Troll IMO
-
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
It took me ten seconds to find the KAGUYA television transmissions from the Moon. You clearly haven't investigated the record of lunar exploration, so there's no reason to believe that your objections and denials are anything more than products of your willful ignorance.
-
Best not to mention the Russian and American probes ... are a joke, there is the case of surveyor III, examine those three small motors with three fixed nozzles oriented in the same direction ... how he would maneuver in space? see the "robotic arm" and tell me if not for a laugh.
The joke is that you have just demonstrated how little you know about the SUrveyor missions.
Come, then, shows you what you know ...
We must accept by faith that in the '60s, the US and the USSR were able to land the rocket engine driven devices that were not controlled by computer (not yet existed that capacity).
Nope, we must accept that they did that, because they did, and your complete lack of knowledge in yet another field of human endeavour is no proof that anything different happened.
;D ;D ;D Because you say that...
I never saw a single prototype manned spacecraft or not able to land safely and controlled here on Earth, then how can we believe that they got done on other planets?
Don't translate "I" to "we". You've demonstrated time and again that you are completely ignorant of anything on which you claim to have expertise, so your belief doesn't really count for anything. Prove it's impossible.
Are you stupid or a troll, it is you who must prove the existence of something, look no further excuses, bring here this week show a vehicle capable of doing what you accept by faith.
-
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
It took me ten seconds to find the KAGUYA television transmissions from the Moon. You clearly haven't investigated the record of lunar exploration, so there's no reason to believe that your objections and denials are anything more than products of your willful ignorance.
American probes j Windley, American probes ... which of them have TV cameras?
New Horizons? NO.
LRO? NO
Mars Curiosity (and others) NO.
Which?
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
-
If you're including 10 then why not 8? Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon? Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen. Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
-
American probes j Windley, American probes ... which of them have TV cameras?
New Horizons? NO.
LRO? NO
Mars Curiosity (and others) NO.
Which?
Moving the goalposts again.
-
American probes j Windley, American probes ... which of them have TV cameras?
You just added that condition.
Which?
You can start with Ranger, which is an American spacecraft sent to the Moon and which transmitted television back.
The other missions you've named either have no need for streamed television or are interplanetary missions that make long-distance television transmission prohibitive. In your haste to invent reasons, you've ignored such things as mission objectives and requirements. You started out by suggesting television transmission from space was impossible, therefore Apollo was fake. Now you've backpedaled into ad hoc revisionism, and the bizarre notion that any viable spacecraft need to transmit television.
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX...
Not until you provide an end-to-end scenario for a hoax, complete with evidence. The essence of Occam's razor is that explanations that rely on untested speculation are automatically less explanatory and thus pruned.
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
Are you for real?
-
Are you stupid or a troll, it is you who must prove the existence of something, look no further excuses, bring here this week show a vehicle capable of doing what you accept by faith.
I don't need to do anything you demand when you have repeatedly failed to answer points made to you that have proven statements of yours to be ignorant and false. Calling me a troll and stupid when you have just come here to post unfounded and frankly plain wrong nonsense and refuse to acknowledge when you have had your ass handed to you is laughable.
You can find Lunar Orbiter images of Surveyor probes, and LRO images. They are there. They sent TV images back of the surface. They also photographed Earth. You can find some of the pictures of Earth in here:
http://ia800303.us.archive.org/24/items/surveyorprogramr00unit/surveyorprogramr00unit.pdf
and you can verify that the weather patterns are a match by looking at this:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/TIROS/QC8795C381968ESSA3-ESSA5pt4.pdf
Prove they aren't there.
You might also want to check how Viking probes sent back their images.
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
-
tarkus.
The Apollo programme is a FACT
That they sent men to the moon and landed on it is a FACT
That they brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon... is a FACT
These FACTS are backed up by mountains of documentary evidence, engineering drawings, photographs, films and video, eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies at every stage of the programme, from the X-15 and X-1 programmes, through Mercury and Gemini to Apollo itself. These achievements are accepted as FACT by all of the world's leading astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, geologists, biologists and other scientists.
Therefore, Apollo has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, to have taken place exactly as stated by NASA, and that is THE most important aspect in all of this. NASA explained exactly how they were going to do each part of the programme, and then did it in the full glare of the public eye; failures and all. Therefore, in order to disprove these established facts, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE HOAX BELIEVER!!!
So lets look at what the few hoax believers out there have done to prove their case.
NOT ONE HOAX BELIEVER, not Jack White, not Sibrel, not Fetzer, not Rene, not Kaysing, and not certainly not The Blunder from Down Under, has ever put forward a comprehensive, documented account of how the hoax was perpetrated. Yes, we hear spurious comments about shadow anomalies and waving flags and film studios in the Nevada desert and starless skies and c-rocks and slow motion cameras and other such ignorant, multiply debunked rantings but where is the comprehensive documentary account of exactly how it was all done?
Where exactly was the film studio located?
What types of movie cameras did they use?
Exactly how were the scenes lit?
What happened to the camera crews and other production staff?
What type of film did they use and where and how was it processed?
Who was responsible for all the alterations to the photos (given there was no "Photoshop" in 1969)?
Where did the Apollo rockets go if not to the moon?
How were they able to fake the signals coming from the direction of the moon as established by independent witnesses?
How were they able to fake lunar gravity in a vacuum?
How were they able to store hours upon hours of continuous video?
How do they account for all the new lunar surface photos showing human activity at the sites?
How do they account for LLR which actually required someone to go to the moon to install and align the equipment?
How do they account for hundreds of pounds of rocks and samples brought back that can only have come from the Moon?
How can they explain that of over 400,000 people involved, NOT ONE has ever blown the whistle?
Where is the money coming from to pay for this ongoing conspiracy (even Black Project budgets have Congressional oversight!)?
How do they reconcile the apparent cleverness and brilliance of NASA in perpetrating a the lunar landing hoax on the world for over 40 years, with them being too careless to notice the C-Rock, waving flags and other alleged photographic anomalies?
All of these questions need to be answered by hoax believers, WITH PROOF, before anyone can begin to take anything they say seriously. It is not enough for them to say that they "think" the lunar gravity and vacuum was faked in a vacuum chamber with slow motion filming.... you have to PROVE which vacuum chamber was used, PROVE where it is located, PROVE how the filming was actually done. In other words , they will be held to the same standard of proof that NASA hold themselves to; no more, and no less.
-
Apollo had to take off at SOME time of the day, and at SOME day of the month. And if you pick ANY random day and time, the odds would be exactly the same as yours, Tarkus.
-
Apollo had to take off at SOME time of the day, and at SOME day of the month. And if you pick ANY random day and time, the odds would be exactly the same as yours, Tarkus.
Moreover, NASA had a launch window (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BIXQ0xnGQ), that was physically restrained by celestial mechanics. The moon and planets wait for no one, tarkus.
-
Moreover, NASA had a launch window (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BIXQ0xnGQ), that was physically restrained by celestial mechanics. The moon and planets wait for no one, tarkus.
That's for sure :)
-
Rather touchy about this battle weren't they?
I the spirit of US-French relationships, at least Google fixed the search for 'French military victories.'
-
Tarkus, as you've returned, how about answering my questions?
What have you to say about the demonstrations of the error in your original argument about the 'missing' service module?
On the other thread, how big would Earth appear to be from 800,000km distance if it appears to be 2 degrees wide from 400,000km?
-
Let me guess. Someone here thinks a probe with a TV camera thinks it is loaded with something of this size?
http://big13.com/images/marconi.JPG
Tarkus, you do know who you are dealing with on this board, don't you?
-
Let me guess. Someone here thinks a probe with a TV camera thinks it is loaded with something of this size?
http://big13.com/images/marconi.JPG
Tarkus, you do know who you are dealing with on this board, don't you?
I think he's also expecting it to be a continuous live feed, like they did with actual Apollo lunar surface broadcasts.
-
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?).
Try this:
Of course, I can guess what you'll say...but the evidence is there.
And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Fine. So maybe the crew of Apollo 12 didn't bring back the TV camera from Surveyor 3. But they certainly brought back some rocks. How about you explain where the Apollo rocks came from and how they arrived on the Earth?
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
Missions to distant planets...missions to the Moon. Can you guess one significant difference between these two sorts of missions? Hint: it's the distance.
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Too bad you can't count. Apollos 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 makes nine missions.
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
So what?
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
Yes, 1.13pm in Houston. But 2.13pm at the launch site. And 5.13am the next day in Sydney.
Again, so what?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
So what about the number 13 and bad luck? That's only a thing in some societies. In Italy 17 is the unlucky number. In China the unlucky number is 4.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
Ri-i-i-i-ight.
And your evidence for this is...what?
-
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?).
Try this:
Of course, I can guess what you'll say...but the evidence is there.
And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
Fine. So maybe the crew of Apollo 12 didn't bring back the TV camera from Surveyor 3. But they certainly brought back some rocks. How about you explain where the Apollo rocks came from and how they arrived on the Earth?
Moreover, at present no probe travels equipped with TV cameras, so there is no reason to believe that in the distant 60s capable of transmitting TV from space.
Missions to distant planets...missions to the Moon. Can you guess one significant difference between these two sorts of missions? Hint: it's the distance.
This image indeed verifys the viceo or vice versa
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7109HR.jpg
-
Okay, Tarkus. You say no one can convince you. Fine. But the thing is, what you are doing won't convince anyone. I freely admit that it would take some doing to convince me that the Apollo missions were faked, but you aren't even going about it in the right way. Because what I would need from someone to convince me isn't bald denial of evidence. It's presentation of different evidence. NASA has presented literally tons of evidence that they went. I've evaluated what my specific educational level and direction permits me to evaluate (it's more than you might think), and it holds up. People actually educated in other relevant fields have evaluated what they can, and they have universally said it holds up. The only people who don't think it does either don't have education or have an obvious axe to grind--at least one person has gone on record as saying it's just a way of getting at the US government for other perceived failings, and every time he used a piece of evidence, he was using it incorrectly. So that's what you're up against to prove that it was a hoax. You have to explain two things, and they're both huge. You have to explain how literally every piece of evidence in support of Apollo was hoaxed, and you have to provide evidence to show that it was hoaxed. Not just "it could have been." Exactly how. Because if you can't explain exactly how it was hoaxed, Occam's Razor in fact says that the logical explanation is that the evidence is real.
-
I think he's also expecting it to be a continuous live feed, like they did with actual Apollo lunar surface broadcasts.
I think he's also expecting random Internet people rather than the guy who literally wrote the book on Apollo television. Live television was not available on demand. It required augmenting the MSFN with additional capacity that had to be returned to its standing purposes when not needed. Even today the Deep Space Network doesn't provide the bandwidth for live television feeds. And that's okay, because we don't need it. It made sense for missions that had spectator-sport value, but not so much for the unmanned drones we chiefly employ today. As Peter B notes, distance matters. Interplanetary missions using DSN must make do trickling data rates and frequent errors. There simply isn't room for live television. As I mentioned, the Japanese gave us live HDTV from lunar orbit. But as soon I mentioned it, tarkus moved the goalposts. And of course we have nearly constant video feeds from the ISS. That's possible because Earth orbit is very nearby, in galactic terms.
The argument seems to be that we don't have live television from the Moon or Mars because it's impossible today (for Americans), and if it's impossible today (for Americans) then it was certainly impossible in 1969. But for reasons which have been belabored, that's a highly simplistic assessment that ignores a vast fleet of important details and conflicting factors.
-
I think he's also expecting random Internet people rather than the guy who literally wrote the book on Apollo television.
Whoever he is, he's apparently not aware of what Stan Lebar told him, despite being moderately handsome* and being an all-round great guy.
*open to debate
-
I think he's also expecting random Internet people rather than the guy who literally wrote the book on Apollo television.
Whoever he is, he's apparently not aware of what Stan Lebar told him, despite being moderately handsome* and being an all-round great guy.
*open to debate
I don't think he would understand the technology nor the implications of any report
-
NASA has presented literally tons of evidence that they went. I've evaluated what my specific educational level and direction permits me to evaluate (it's more than you might think), and it holds up. People actually educated in other relevant fields have evaluated what they can, and they have universally said it holds up.
It holds up very well, and its techniques are still being taught to engineers today.
But technical details aside, when tarkus wields Occam's Razor, he's holding it by the wrong end. Occam's Razor is an explicit framework for comparing two hypotheses. It cannot be used simply to disregard or discredit a single hypothesis in isolation. Tarkus implies the other hypothesis is that Apollo 13 (and the other missions) were hoaxes. Laying aside all the superstition and cabalistic handwaving, Occam's Razor clearly prunes the hoax hypothesis. Occam requires two hypotheses with equal ability to explain the outcome. The one that does so by the least appeal to conjecture or untestable claims is deemed the most parsimonious.
Smartcooky has given us an excellent list of the kinds of questions that would need to be answered before the hoax hypothesis can be said not to be purely conjectural. However tarkus misunderstand's William of Occam's intent entirely. Tarkus tells us that the Razor prunes Apollo 13 (on flimsy superstitious and dubious statistical grounds), but then insinuates the hoax hypothesis then stands by default. That's not at all how Occam's Razor works.
-
NASA has presented literally tons of evidence that they went. I've evaluated what my specific educational level and direction permits me to evaluate (it's more than you might think), and it holds up. People actually educated in other relevant fields have evaluated what they can, and they have universally said it holds up.
It holds up very well, and its techniques are still being taught to engineers today.
But technical details aside, when tarkus wields Occam's Razor, he's holding it by the wrong end. Occam's Razor is an explicit framework for comparing two hypotheses. It cannot be used simply to disregard or discredit a single hypothesis in isolation. Tarkus implies the other hypothesis is that Apollo 13 (and the other missions) were hoaxes. Laying aside all the superstition and cabalistic handwaving, Occam's Razor clearly prunes the hoax hypothesis. Occam requires two hypotheses with equal ability to explain the outcome. The one that does so by the least appeal to conjecture or untestable claims is deemed the most parsimonious.
Smartcooky has given us an excellent list of the kinds of questions that would need to be answered before the hoax hypothesis can be said not to be purely conjectural. However tarkus misunderstand's William of Occam's intent entirely. Tarkus tells us that the Razor prunes Apollo 13 (on flimsy superstitious and dubious statistical grounds), but then insinuates the hoax hypothesis then stands by default. That's not at all how Occam's Razor works.
It seemeed to me that he was not applying Occam's Razor correctly, but I don't know a of the setups.
-
....Even today the Deep Space Network doesn't provide the bandwidth for live television feeds.
Now, I did not know that!!
I really, really MUST get a copy of Dwight's book, and read it!!!
-
Keep in mind the DSN is only for interplanetary use. Its role in orbital operations is limited.
-
They brought back a TV camera whose performance must demonstrate (where the films are surveyor III?). And I do not think they have been to the moon, no one will convince me that that camera brought from there.
No, and that's the problem. Your mind is welded shut, and no possible proof will convince you. Taking you to the Moon and letting you examine the sites wouldn't convince you.
-
....Even today the Deep Space Network doesn't provide the bandwidth for live television feeds.
Now, I did not know that!!
I really, really MUST get a copy of Dwight's book, and read it!!!
I didn't know that either. Those smart NASA engineers/technicians think of most everything.
-
If you're including 10 then why not 8? Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon? Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen. Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!
-
If you're including 10 then why not 8? Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon? Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen. Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!
And this means?
-
If you're including 10 then why not 8? Or didn't you know that also went around the Moon? Just because something has a low chance doesn't mean it will never happen. Or don't people win the lottery all the time?
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!
And now you are demonstrating your ignorance about probability.
-
And now you are demonstrating your ignorance about probability.
Pretty well fits his/her personality
-
American probes j Windley, American probes ... which of them have TV cameras?
You just added that condition.
Which?
You can start with Ranger, which is an American spacecraft sent to the Moon and which transmitted television back.
The other missions you've named either have no need for streamed television or are interplanetary missions that make long-distance television transmission prohibitive. In your haste to invent reasons, you've ignored such things as mission objectives and requirements. You started out by suggesting television transmission from space was impossible, therefore Apollo was fake. Now you've backpedaled into ad hoc revisionism, and the bizarre notion that any viable spacecraft need to transmit television.
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13)
-
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
The mission rules/objectives included television so they broadcast from the Lunar surface. You obviously didn't understand or you refuse to understand what Jay said.
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13)
Yes and it has been pointed out to you that is was 14:13 at KSC at launch. So what's unlucky about that? What time was it where you lived?
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13)
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
-
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
-
tarkus.
The Apollo programme is a FACT
That they sent men to the moon and landed on it is a FACT
That they brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon... is a FACT
These FACTS are backed up by mountains of documentary evidence, engineering drawings, photographs, films and video, eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies at every stage of the programme, from the X-15 and X-1 programmes, through Mercury and Gemini to Apollo itself. These achievements are accepted as FACT by all of the world's leading astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, geologists, biologists and other scientists.
Therefore, Apollo has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, to have taken place exactly as stated by NASA, and that is THE most important aspect in all of this. NASA explained exactly how they were going to do each part of the programme, and then did it in the full glare of the public eye; failures and all. Therefore, in order to disprove these established facts, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE HOAX BELIEVER!!!
So lets look at what the few hoax believers out there have done to prove their case.
NOT ONE HOAX BELIEVER, not Jack White, not Sibrel, not Fetzer, not Rene, not Kaysing, and not certainly not The Blunder from Down Under, has ever put forward a comprehensive, documented account of how the hoax was perpetrated. Yes, we hear spurious comments about shadow anomalies and waving flags and film studios in the Nevada desert and starless skies and c-rocks and slow motion cameras and other such ignorant, multiply debunked rantings but where is the comprehensive documentary account of exactly how it was all done?
Where exactly was the film studio located?
What types of movie cameras did they use?
Exactly how were the scenes lit?
What happened to the camera crews and other production staff?
What type of film did they use and where and how was it processed?
Who was responsible for all the alterations to the photos (given there was no "Photoshop" in 1969)?
Where did the Apollo rockets go if not to the moon?
How were they able to fake the signals coming from the direction of the moon as established by independent witnesses?
How were they able to fake lunar gravity in a vacuum?
How were they able to store hours upon hours of continuous video?
How do they account for all the new lunar surface photos showing human activity at the sites?
How do they account for LLR which actually required someone to go to the moon to install and align the equipment?
How do they account for hundreds of pounds of rocks and samples brought back that can only have come from the Moon?
How can they explain that of over 400,000 people involved, NOT ONE has ever blown the whistle?
Where is the money coming from to pay for this ongoing conspiracy (even Black Project budgets have Congressional oversight!)?
How do they reconcile the apparent cleverness and brilliance of NASA in perpetrating a the lunar landing hoax on the world for over 40 years, with them being too careless to notice the C-Rock, waving flags and other alleged photographic anomalies?
All of these questions need to be answered by hoax believers, WITH PROOF, before anyone can begin to take anything they say seriously. It is not enough for them to say that they "think" the lunar gravity and vacuum was faked in a vacuum chamber with slow motion filming.... you have to PROVE which vacuum chamber was used, PROVE where it is located, PROVE how the filming was actually done. In other words , they will be held to the same standard of proof that NASA hold themselves to; no more, and no less.
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
As for the landings, but the media coverage was terrible, reaches us to know that no space module landed on the moon, we need only observe the landing site, there is no dust on the legs of LM, but what you say as a pretext? "engine turned off a few seconds before touching the ground" ... lie exposed for the same films.
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13)
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated
-
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
How so could the moon rocks come from fallen meteorites? Please present your evidence.
-
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Also known as UTC
-
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".
Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.
Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NQjyIvXWL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch. so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.
EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13)
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated
No, you didn't.
-
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
It is you who applies the condition we have to accept everything as faith. Why do you project this condition on to us when it is you who presents faith and numerology based arguments. There is an obvious hypocrisy to your position.
-
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
How so could the moon rocks come from fallen meteorites? Please present your evidence.
His evidence is he's completely ignorant of geology and assumes everyone else is too.
-
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Also known as UTC
Thank you very much for the swift reply. :)
As I mentioned earlier, tarkus, celestial mechanics gave NASA a specific launch window. So, are you not only claiming the moon is fake, despite evidence of lunar tides at least 800 million years old (http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252430992_Oldest_direct_evidence_of_lunar-solar_tidal_forcing_encoded_in_sedimentary_rhythmites_Proterozoic_Big_Cottonwood_Formation_central_Utah), but NASA has it under remote control?! :o
-
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
I gave you the reasons. Address them.
-
The launch site is in EST. And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu. But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
= GMT
-
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated
No, you just conducted a pointless numerological exercise and insinuated on that basis that NASA is somehow governed by the occult. Your numerology was exposed as being, well, numerology, but also as being based upon cherry-picked data.
-
tarkus.
The Apollo programme is a FACT
That they sent men to the moon and landed on it is a FACT
That they brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon... is a FACT
These FACTS are backed up by mountains of documentary evidence, engineering drawings, photographs, films and video, eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies at every stage of the programme, from the X-15 and X-1 programmes, through Mercury and Gemini to Apollo itself. These achievements are accepted as FACT by all of the world's leading astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, geologists, biologists and other scientists.
Therefore, Apollo has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, to have taken place exactly as stated by NASA, and that is THE most important aspect in all of this. NASA explained exactly how they were going to do each part of the programme, and then did it in the full glare of the public eye; failures and all. Therefore, in order to disprove these established facts, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE HOAX BELIEVER!!!
So lets look at what the few hoax believers out there have done to prove their case.
NOT ONE HOAX BELIEVER, not Jack White, not Sibrel, not Fetzer, not Rene, not Kaysing, and not certainly not The Blunder from Down Under, has ever put forward a comprehensive, documented account of how the hoax was perpetrated. Yes, we hear spurious comments about shadow anomalies and waving flags and film studios in the Nevada desert and starless skies and c-rocks and slow motion cameras and other such ignorant, multiply debunked rantings but where is the comprehensive documentary account of exactly how it was all done?
Where exactly was the film studio located?
What types of movie cameras did they use?
Exactly how were the scenes lit?
What happened to the camera crews and other production staff?
What type of film did they use and where and how was it processed?
Who was responsible for all the alterations to the photos (given there was no "Photoshop" in 1969)?
Where did the Apollo rockets go if not to the moon?
How were they able to fake the signals coming from the direction of the moon as established by independent witnesses?
How were they able to fake lunar gravity in a vacuum?
How were they able to store hours upon hours of continuous video?
How do they account for all the new lunar surface photos showing human activity at the sites?
How do they account for LLR which actually required someone to go to the moon to install and align the equipment?
How do they account for hundreds of pounds of rocks and samples brought back that can only have come from the Moon?
How can they explain that of over 400,000 people involved, NOT ONE has ever blown the whistle?
Where is the money coming from to pay for this ongoing conspiracy (even Black Project budgets have Congressional oversight!)?
How do they reconcile the apparent cleverness and brilliance of NASA in perpetrating a the lunar landing hoax on the world for over 40 years, with them being too careless to notice the C-Rock, waving flags and other alleged photographic anomalies?
All of these questions need to be answered by hoax believers, WITH PROOF, before anyone can begin to take anything they say seriously. It is not enough for them to say that they "think" the lunar gravity and vacuum was faked in a vacuum chamber with slow motion filming.... you have to PROVE which vacuum chamber was used, PROVE where it is located, PROVE how the filming was actually done. In other words , they will be held to the same standard of proof that NASA hold themselves to; no more, and no less.
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
As for the landings, but the media coverage was terrible, reaches us to know that no space module landed on the moon, we need only observe the landing site, there is no dust on the legs of LM, but what you say as a pretext? "engine turned off a few seconds before touching the ground" ... lie exposed for the same films.
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
Martian meteorites have a different oxygen isotope than those from the moon and therefore could not be mistaken. Also I believe that the3 number of lunar meteorites
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/
-
No, you just conducted a pointless numerological exercise and insinuated on that basis that NASA is somehow governed by the occult. Your numerology was exposed as being, well, numerology, but also as being based upon cherry-picked data.
Obvious troll IMO
-
So you actually don't plan on addressing my two very straightforward questions at all then, tarus. Thought not. Why is it so hard for you to actually engage rather than running away and switching to a different (non)argument the moment you get caught out or shown to be wrong?
-
So you actually don't plan on addressing my two very straightforward questions at all then, tarus. Thought not. Why is it so hard for you to actually engage rather than running away and switching to a different (non)argument the moment you get caught out or shown to be wrong?
Site navigation challenged? ::)
-
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Military practice since WW2 (IIRC) has assigned each time zone a letter. Universal time (then called Greenwich Mean Time) was assigned 'Z'. I don't think any of the other letters are still used, but the use of Z for GMT/UTC persists in a lot of places including aviation, weather forecasting and ham radio.
-
You are short of understanding ... of course people win the lottery every day, which is not credible is that one person wins the lottery three consecutive days!!!
He's actually got a point. Any specific event (e.g., my winning the lottery) may have a very low probability, but the class of similar events (someone in my state winning the lottery) is so large that the probability of one of those events happening is unity. You just don't know which one in advance.
So while it's certain that someone will win the lottery on a given day, it is extremely unlikely that that same person will win the lottery on three consecutive days. That's true.
However, this has nothing to do with the reality of Apollo.
-
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:
To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay.
So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.
-
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so...
Well then in the first place you should quit changing the subject when you're cornered on some topic. In the second place these are questions you should have investigated and answered before drawing your conclusion. Your inability to provide your predetermined answers to them only illustrates how poorly you researched your decision that the Moon landings were hoaxed. You really don't have the whole thing worked out. You asserted your desired belief, and now you're just making it up as you go.
moonstones [...] could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
No, scientists can tell the difference between stones that were recovered in situ and meteorites that traveled through Earth's atmosphere and laid in an Earth environment for a vast stretch of time. The only people who believe that meteorites can stand in for Apollo samples have no detectable knowledge of geology.
As for the landings, but the media coverage was terrible...
By what standard? In what exact way does that perceived deficiency disqualify it as evidence that you must explain?
there is no dust on the legs of LM...
Why should there be?
"engine turned off a few seconds before touching the ground" ... lie exposed for the same films.
Oversimplification. While the flight operational procedure called for engine cutoff some 1.5 meters above the surface, in fact the records show it was in some cases and was not in other cases. The pilots themselves testified to having applied the procedure variously, based on their judgment. Further, as has been shown, engine cutoff and the cessation of visible activity are not the same event.
-
Tarkus ,If you are implying that there is no dust on the landing pads, you must look at the image library. There you will see images with dust on the pads.
-
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Military practice since WW2 (IIRC) has assigned each time zone a letter. Universal time (then called Greenwich Mean Time) was assigned 'Z'. I don't think any of the other letters are still used, but the use of Z for GMT/UTC persists in a lot of places including aviation, weather forecasting and ham radio.
Here, the military uses Alpha, Bravo and Zulu time, for normal time, winter time adjusted, and GMT.
-
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:
To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay.
So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.
I went and looked at the whole landing video, the exhaust sequence is about 3 seconds after touch down. so your comment but it keeps blowing and blowing is rather incorrect here is the video
EDIT added video link.
-
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago
What makes you think it was "so easy" 50 years ago? It was (and is) difficult and expensive.
right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space...
Why should there be one? It is difficult and expensive. What would we get out of it that would justify the cost?
...but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.
No, you are asked to accept the evidence that you have taken the time to research and compare to your detailed understanding of science and engineering with which you have educated yourself.
Oh, wait...
-
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
Rubbish. Again you are displaying your ignorance of even simple concepts.
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so,
Good. Then you will have no problems answering the 5 questions above.
-
No, you are asked to accept the evidence that you have taken the time to research and compare to your detailed understanding of science and engineering with which you have educated yourself.
Oh, wait...
That's exactly the ticket. Tarkus has more projection going on than the local megaplex. Sure, it takes years of study and experience to understand how Apollo worked at th detailed level. Some acquire it professionally and apply it not necessarily to Apollo-like endeavors. Others acquire it informally as hobbyists. But it can be done. And once done, NASA's books are as wide open as any project's books can practically be. Specimen spacecraft are available for inspection in museums. Cast-off specimens are available for purchase. NASA and its contractors present us with a detailed "How we did it" scenario.
Now if you don't have the time, talents, or energy to undertake a suitable study, then yes you are left to rely on faith. But left there essentially by choice. Corporate accounting doesn't interest me, so I've chosen to let others, who have the required skill, to do it on my behalf. And that entails faith and trust. I could, if I wish, acquire the skills and evaluate their work on my own. It's not as if NASA requires us to trust them. It's simply the path most choose.
Conversely Tarkus has evidently chosen not to acquire any of the appropriate knowledge and skill. But instead he's chosen to put his faith in Eric Hufschmid (and likely others) to give him the digest version of what's "scientifically" wrong with Apollo. Rather than check it for himself, he's simply let others do his thinking for him. Time and again we find the conspiracy theorists are the ones with the deepest ingrained faith.
-
...and they are the ones who proclaim loudest that everyone else is going on blind faith.
-
...and they are the ones who proclaim loudest that everyone else is going on blind faith.
Hilarious, isn't it? The ones that keep banging on about having an "open mind" are the very same ones that deny all attempts to learn something new.
-
...and they are the ones who proclaim loudest that everyone else is going on blind faith.
Or they are the critical thinkers.
-
moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth
Here are some points you should bear in mind:
1. Apollo brought back 381kg of samples from the Moon. The total amount of lunar material ever found on Earth is less than 50kg.
2. The first identification of a lunar meteorite was made in 1982 from a rock found in 1979. No rocks found before the Apollo landings have been confirmed as being of lunar origin, and any rocks found since that have been confirmed as lunar have only been identified as such by comparison with the Apollo sample collection.
3. An attentive middle-school geography pupil could instantly tell the difference between a rock found on Earth and one brought back from the Moon. It is part of the English 'O' level geography syllabus to visually recognise the mechanical and chemical weathering on rocks that take place in the presence of water and oxygen.
Additionally, meteorites show clear evidence of their high-velocity journey through the Earth's atmosphere in the form of their fusion crust. Apollo samples do not exhibit either mechanical/chemical weathering in a wet/oxygen environment or a fusion crust, but they do show signs of prolonged exposure to an environment completely unlike Earth's - for example surface crystal damage from cosmic rays and 'zap pits' from high-velocity micro-meteoroid bombardment in a vacuum, neither of which could occur within Earth's atmosphere but which would be obliterated if those rocks had arrived on Earth as meteorites (and would be replaced by the type of weathering already mentioned).
There are many other indications which demonstrate that the Apollo sample collection could only have been obtained by trained hands from the surface of the Moon, and no qualified geologist has ever doubted their authenticity. Why not find out more about it?
-
Sure, it takes years of study and experience to understand how Apollo worked at th detailed level.
Or alternatively, one can acquire a basic level of knowledge, understand that that most hoax arguments fail at a basic level and therefore CTs talk utter arse (I don't often use profanity at these boards).
Let's face it, parallel shadows, waving flags, C-rocks, multiple light sources, blast craters and sped up film (is it 67% or 50% slowed down?) aren't the most sophisticated arguments to debunk.
In fairness, fattydash and the lost Eagle required a lot more expertise than I have to debunk, but eh? I learned something there. Sadly, this thread is dull, and I am really not learning anything new from Tarkus. Why? Because there is nothing to be seen. (I say that with due respect to the regular members).
-
Hilarious, isn't it? The ones that keep banging on about having an "open mind" are the very same ones that deny all attempts to learn something new.
Open mind is a euphemism for 'I can't be bothered to use my own so I'll just believe what I read and immerse myself in fantasy because that makes me different, and then I can claim no one else thinks in the way I do.'
It's like the accusation of sheeple, that grates considerably.
-
Or they are the critical thinkers.
People proclaimed that Ralph Rene was a critical thinker. He was certainly critical, but not in the sense that he could affix critical with thinking.
-
Or they are the critical thinkers.
People proclaimed that Ralph Rene was a critical thinker. He was certainly critical, but not in the sense that he could affix critical with thinking.
Indeed, he was nothing more than the ideas and observations which were wrong if one looks at his propositions with critical thinking. :)
-
Tarkus,
You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
-
Tarkus,
You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
He is still looking for a web site to copy. ::)
-
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:
To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay.
So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.
Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
-
Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
No. You need to explain why you haven't seen the rather copious evidence of those things in the photographic record, with the possible exception of dust on the legs. The latter is an expectation that doesn't follow well from the physics of how the engine works, and the materials covering the legs.
-
Tarkus,
You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
1) I do not know
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.
3) idem
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
5) Yes.
-
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles
No they aren't.
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
You have evidence only that Von Braun went to Antarctica. Where is your evidence that he went there to recover lunar meteorites to stand in as samples? Further, why would that make sense? Why would NASA send one of its most prominent scientists to do what would have to be a very secret thing? Why would NASA publicize the trip? Further, why would Von Braun be an expert on lunar meteorites? He was an engineer, not a geologist. Your scenario doesn't make sense, and is not supported by evidence.
5) Yes.
How do you explain that the world's geologists can tell the difference between Apollo samples and lunar meteorites?
-
The subsidiary question you need to answer, tarkus, is:
How do you think they know that lunar meteorites are from the moon?
-
Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
No. You need to explain why you haven't seen the rather copious evidence of those things in the photographic record, with the possible exception of dust on the legs. The latter is an expectation that doesn't follow well from the physics of how the engine works, and the materials covering the legs.
You must explain ... if you want, but can be quiet, nobody forces you.
It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.
It does not show anything that says, if I ask for landing signals is because I have not seen any so far ... again with the "go and look"? I can guess that has nothing of value to show, then distracted as usual, "do not understand the physics" ... bullshit.
-
No, of course the lunar samples aren't only just "small pebbles". You can't even get the most basic facts right. And the rest is simply question-begging and your own demonstrably ignorant opinion.
Tarkus, you keep getting just about everything wrong. Doesn't that ever embarrass you? Doesn't it ever make you reconsider your claims?
If not, you are simply ineducable - simply unwilling and/or unable to learn. In that case, why should anyone waste more time trying to educate you?
-
You must explain...
The explanation is that you haven't looked at the record. You assert that things aren't there which the rest of us -- and the rest of the world -- knows are there, or can easily determine. Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion. I fully expect someone coming here arguing that the record is incomplete to at least have surveyed Roll 39, probably the singular most important roll of film from all the Apollo project.
But you haven't even done that. So you don't deserve the courtesy that would ordinarily be afforded a conscientious claimant. You aren't conscientious. You're ignorant, lazy, and arrogant. Those well-established properties forbid you from levying burdens of production on your opponents. Your laziness obligates no one to do your homework for you.
It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.
You need to explain why you expect there to be.
-
"Small pebble" (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/atlas/compendium/76015.pdf), eh? Look here (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/) if you want to see more how much you are just so damn wrong. Some are 'pebbles', sure, but many are not as well.
-
Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion.
I think that was roll 40, not roll 39. Roll 39 is a black-and-white magazine used to document the lunar surface from within the LM before and after the EVA. Roll 40 is the color magazine used during the EVA.
-
I think that was roll 40, not roll 39.
Yeah, you're right. In any case it takes only a few minutes to look at any of the rolls at the LPI atlas.
-
<snip>
Thank you for finally making an attempt to answer
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.
Incorrect. Big Muley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Muley) is nearly 12kg in mass.
3) idem
I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?
5) Yes.
Why do you think that a Moon meteorite would be the same as an Apollo sample? Can you point out a single, qualified source that backs up your claim?
Again, thanks for answering.
-
Armstrong spent a substantial portion of Roll 39 photographing the area under the LM, showing discoloration of the regolith due to heat loading, and the various effects of fluid erosion.
I think that was roll 40, not roll 39. Roll 39 is a black-and-white magazine used to document the lunar surface from within the LM before and after the EVA. Roll 40 is the color magazine used during the EVA.
Do we still have the t-shirts?
-
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...
(http://i62.tinypic.com/166ahdw.gif)
The answers are all out there; you only have to find it and read it. Quoting from the Pilot's Report in the Apollo 14 Mission Report:
To provide a soft landing, a delay of about 2 seconds was allowed between acquisition of the contact lights and activation of the engine stop button. Touchdown occurred at shutdown with some small dust-blowing action continuing during engine thrust tailoff or decay.
So there you have it. The descent engine was shut off relatively late, and even after it was shut down it took a few moments for all the hot gas to leave the engine; it can't get out instantly. This is quite normal and expected with this type of rocket engine.
Then you need to explain the absence of dust in the legs, the absence of visible marks on the floor and the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
Why would you think there should be dust on the legs? Now IF you are speaking of the landing pads, try this one to debunk that thought.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9234HR.jpg
-
3) idem
I do not understand. What are you trying to say here?
He's effectively saying "I answered that in my reply to the previous question".
idem
ˈʌɪdɛm,ˈɪdɛm/Submit
adverb
adverb: idem
used in citations to indicate an author or word that has just been mentioned.
"Marianne Elliott, Partners in Revolution, 1982; idem, Wolfe Tone, 1989"
-
... the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
What? You mean like this:
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS11/40/5921.jpg)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5921
Full Resolution:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5921.jpg
-
Tarkus,
You have made a number of posts since I asked you these direct questions. Could you please answer them?
Thank you in advance.
1. What quantity of Martian meteorites do we posses?
2. What traces of a high-speed transition through Earth's atmosphere would be left on a rock that originated from the Moon or Mars?
3. Do you think that these traces are present or absent in the Apollo samples?
4. Do you know if we are in possession of "Moon meteorites" (that is, rocks that originated from the Moon and have been found on Earth)?
5. Do you think that those Moon meteorites will be the same as the Apollo samples?
1) I do not know
2) Those traces would surface, lunar samples are only small pebbles, enough to break a lunar meteorite.
3) idem
4) For that traveled to Antarctica Von Braun & Co years before Apollo 11.
5) Yes.
Why do you think NASA would send a rocket scientist to pick up rocks, it would have been better to send one of the geologists.
This trip was two fold neither of which in involved gathering rocks. get the rocket team from Huntsville together with the MCC personnel from Houston kind of like a gathering of the minds in the "field" not in an office environment.
-
... the absence of radial dispersion of dust under the LM.
What? You mean like this:
(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/browse/AS11/40/5921.jpg)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5921
Full Resolution:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5921.jpg
And remember, if this was fake, every single detail you see there would have had to have been crafted by someone, the surface sculpted and painted to get that effect. Why do I bring it up? Because if the above is not enough, as conspiracy theorists claim, then why didn't NASA and the alleged set makers add more? Even whistle blowers are not enough to explain this, as why would NASA release such a picture? Surely they would have had people going over the pictures to check for alleged errors like this before releasing such photos.
-
It does not explain why there is no trace of dust in the legs.
There ARE photographs with 'dust in the legs', but the majority of it was driven out toward the horizon and ended up far, far away from the landing craft.
You do understand why, don't you?
-
No, he probably doesn't. The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second. The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale). It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it. Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.
-
No, he probably doesn't. The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second. The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale). It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it. Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.
I doubt he's even put that much thought into it. I'm betting he's just copied the claim from one of many ignorant hoaxie sites.
-
No, he probably doesn't. The exhaust gas velocity is thousands of meters per second. The dust scoured from the surface is entrained in that flow, and so impacts the surface of the struts, footpads, etc. at tremendous velocity, with tremendous kinetic energy (at that scale). It is far more likely simply to bounce off than to somehow stick to it. Tarkus' mistaken expectation no doubt derives from assumptions that it would billow up in clouds, aerosolized as it is on Earth in an ambient atmosphere, and then settle gently back down on all the nearby surfaces.
I doubt he's even put that much thought into it. I'm betting he's just copied the claim from one of many ignorant hoaxie sites.
I'll second that thought
-
Further, why would Von Braun be an expert on lunar meteorites? He was an engineer, not a geologist. Your scenario doesn't make sense, and is not supported by evidence.
Nobody even knew there were such things as lunar meteorites in the Austral summer of 1966/67 which is when WvB was in the Antarctic. A few Antarctic meteorites were known at this time - the first being found on Mawson's expedition in 1912, but serious collecting did not start until the Austral summer of 1969/70.
WvB was interested primarily in the management and logistics sides of the operation, not the science. He was a manager after all. As far as I know the only field trip he did was to the dry valleys (not a good place for meteorites), the rest of the time he was at the stations. WvB's visit was reported in the media (National Geographic, Popular Mechanics ran articles), which is rather odd for a mission supposedly to secretly collect rocks.
Then there is the little matter that the rocks of the Antarctic Dry Valleys bear little relation to lunar rocks. They include dolerite, granite, gneiss, sandstone, tillites, and conglomerate, even coals. No basalt, gabbro, anorthosite, norite, impact breccias, impact glasses, or anything else found in lunar samples. They are also only 180-500 million years old, unlike the lunar samples which are all 3.2-4.5 billion years old.
And of course the Dry Valley soils are not impregnated with solar wind gases, nor do the rocks show space weathering (micrometeorite pits, cosmic ray damage, high levels of cosmogenic isotopes, vacuum welding).