Well, as I was reading the thread stargazer started, I decided to head over to Hufschmid's site myself for a bit of entertainment.
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Apollo_NASA.htmlWow, it's bad. First off, I looked at this page:
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Science_Challenge_26.htmlThe correct answer is, of course, C, but nowhere on his site can I find what he
thinks the answer is. He might have actually gotten it (his own question) right. Did he? Also, looking at the drawing stargazer linked to, I can immediately see that he assumes
no light is reflected back toward the source. Which is, of course, wrong. Wouldn't that mean that, for lack of a better way to put, looking away from the sun you couldn't see the moon AT ALL? Just a black expanse.
The funny part was reading his .pdf, (
http://hugequestions.com/Eric/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf) where he says
manufacturing technology was too primitive.
He actually seems amazed at the concept of a person actually standing in front of a machine and operating it, instead of a computer doing the work. Yes, in fact, this is how things were done until quite recently. Boy, he must be pretty young and not get out much. He actually can't seem to imagine that
anything sophisticated was done before modern computers. Note to Hufschmid, if you're reading this - the SR-71 that you stated exists (since you quoted a pilot's experience as evidence) - it was built the same way, and it was designed using - you guessed it - a slide rule! A new idea at least, so give him credit for that.
He then goes to assume that Apollo somehow came out of nowhere, not as a result of nearly a decade of spaceflight. And of course,
Tell me one technical
achievement of the past that
we of today cannot do faster,
better, and for less money.
One example that comes to mind (thanks, Jay. (at least I think it was you)) is the Concorde. Built in the same decade, operated for years, yet there are no supersonic airliners today. Why? Nobody wants to pay for it.
Email your answer to:
[email protected]
Anybody want to send him said answer? And please post the response here, if you get one.
Next up, he assumes the LM was never tested (which, of it course it was, both manned and unmanned.)
Where are the technical specs for the
lunar lander? For example, the top section blasted
off the moon with how much fuel ?
The bottom half was a rocket
with...how much fuel?? Is NASA
keeping this info a secret? If so, why?
That's a nice question. but why didn't you go look up the answer?
How did two men live in this tiny module?
Why doesn't NASA provide details on how
they accomplished the miracle of keeping
men alive in an incredibly harsh environment?
Did anybody vomit from the zero gravity of
space? Did the astronauts wear diapers?
Seriously, do you even bother to do
any research? It's free online, why not just go and answer you own question? Also this gem:
When they got
that working, they could send an unmanned rocket
to land on the moon, and then the lunar lander would
fly back to the earth
Point and laugh time! He thinks the LM returned to earth! He really didn't bother to do any research, did he?
NASA claims that the scientists were 100% confident that
the lunar rocket worked, so there was
no need to test it.
Doubly wrong. He then apparently seems amazed at EVA training at earth, both that it took place and that they actually put some effort into making it realistic.
And then the old "dry dust doesn't leave footprints." This more or less makes me want to scream at the screen "yes it does!" I distinctly remember amusing myself as a kid by leaving, gasp,
footprints in some rather dusty dirt.
The astronauts also had a perfect
opportunity to demonstrate lunar gravity
and physics to the TV audience. For
example, an astronaut could have
dropped a handful of dirt at the same
time he dropped a rock. That would
show:
-
Dust falls as fast as rocks in a
vacuum.
-
Objects fall more slowly on the
moon.
But the astronauts wasted their time on flag photos and golfing. Were the astronauts boneheads? Or were they on the Earth?
Hey dingbat, they did exactly that, with the whole hammer and feather thing.
He has the unique angle that the photographs taken on the moon weren't good enough, since NASA gave them good cameras. Points at least for taking the opposite direction of usual. Then after a couple more pages, I get to something that's rather outside my area of expertise, and as such can't simply laugh at. The photograph on p.18 - what's the explanation for that one? For that matter, was it even taken on the moon? (Or was this just a training/artistic picture somebody took on earth? Dirt/dust on the lens for the clouds, if it was on the moon? It 'is' quite artsy, to the point of perhaps somebody made it for artistic reasons (edit):- WAIT A SECOND - that picture is in black and white, and all the cameras they took to the moon were in color. (Excepting Apollo 11's TV camera, but that didn't have a rover.) So somebody HAS retouched that image, likely to create exactly the pretty effect the image has. Likely was much more mundane in the actual picture. That also helps explain the 'clouds' and the solid white 'reflection'- it's a side effect of somebody using Photoshop's brightness/contrast or levels tool (or some other tool) far past where it was intended to go. I've run into the same problem myself when I try to grossly change the lightness/darkness of a texture. (Usually unsuccessfully, but I'm trying avoid that kind of contrast.)(end edit.)
On the next page - I've never actually used a film camera, too young for that (and even I know how stupid his "technology" claim above was). Is this how pictures taken on film looking into the sun normally look, regardless of what planet they're taken on? I don't know, I've never done it. The difference is that instead of screaming "conspiracy!" I actually ask someone who
has done it whether that's right or not.
Plus a run of the mill grand unified conspiracy theory that is responsible for everything that happens ever, in the "Zionist jew" flavor this time. With the added fun of "fake conspiracy theorists who try to make the real truth seekers look bad."
So 'this' is who stargazer was quoting? And what has gone wrong with my generation that they can't imagine a world without computers?
