... you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.
Attempt to deflect from self noted.
Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? ...
Lack of understanding on your part does not constitute 'over complication' on anyone else's part.
Perhaps if you had stayed in school and actually learned basics, it wouldn't be so confusing.
I am not anywhere near anyone's level on this site, but, I understand most of the science; of course, math being a weakness for me I entered the InfoSec industry (to include getting my MBA in this discipline and my CISSP (99487)) instead of Space/Aerospace/Rocket sciences, Engineering or disciplines even remotely close to those.
InfoSec requires math, but we generally have tools that help do the calculations ... I just have to understand the formulas - that can be a struggle for me.
Here's the catch: My lack of understanding of the math, the formulas and everything related is on
ME; it does not imply, insinuate, impeach, or otherwise discredit ALL of the learned people here.
Instead, it is due to my lack of effort or due diligence to learn the higher order mathematics (Trig, Calculus, Geometry, etc.).
Everyone on here that explains things and references and/or includes the math does so because they have taken the time and effort to learn it. They have degreed in the related disciplines and have practical experience using them.
They are helping me to try and understand some of this (
thank you all, BTW).
I don't,
for even a millisecond, believe that because they do this, it means they are 'over complicating' things.
Rather, they are attempting to educate those of us who may not understand the math, but still understand the science (or not)
I did do well in physical sciences in High School and some college level, just not well in the math portions; I was part of a team so I was able to utilize a team member to help write that part of our reports.
I was part of the testing (observation, note taking, data gathering, and other aspects) portion and knew from the observation and the results that sometimes, my hypothesis/theory(ies) were wrong.
I explained that in our reports and based it on my personal experiences and referenced the math where required.
Further, these experiences have helped tremendously in my chosen Information Security discipline as I learned how to observe, formulate a theory, evaluate and test to prove/disprove my theory(ies).
I did
NOT learn to generate a theory and then only find evidence to prove me right. That is not science, it is hoax theory. Instead, I do not dismiss anything or anyone that may prove me wrong.
I may be hard headed and resistant at first, but I listen, re-evaluate my stance and correct myself if proven wrong, or if able to prove my position, provide the evidence to show why I was correct.
I am
disappointed when I see someone that attempts to hand-wave away any education I have because:
'science'. It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.
Nope. You have attempted to back pedal from your previous statements. You claimed you had to see the blueprints (which, based on your postings to date, I don't actually believe you would understand if you had them) to prove to you that the Rover did what is has already proven it could do. See quotes below:
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”
“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”
A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.
You made a statement. I read it. I love humor (or humour for my friends in the UK). Love it. Your statement was not humor (not even subtle) - you made the statement, own it, admit you misspoke and let's move on.
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”
So when did you last unfold a LRV?
When did you? You missed the point of the statement, entirely.
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”
Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.
Double wrong on you. You made the statements. Instead of trying to play it off, own it, admit you erred and let's move on.
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation
Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?
Yes and no. The principal of CG, pitch, yaw, roll, energy, thrust, etc. still apply. Even someone like myself can understand that. Why can't you? Why do you insist on ad hominem attacks when proven incapable of following a simple, proven principle of science?
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”
The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.
Yes it did. Back when Apollo deployed and used it on the Moon; in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. You are the only one that insists that blueprints are the ONLY way to prove it existed/worked as designed.
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.
The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”
Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.
There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.
Why do you insist that only a limited number would know? You fail to understand a simple concept, one person, just one, that knows will inevitably tell another. It is human nature to want to impress someone. That aside, the project was a HUGE undertaking; almost half a million folks involved at one point. I guarantee this: if even
ONE (1) of them knew this was fake, the
WORLD would know for sure. The Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury records (not to mention SkyLab, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc.)
ALL speak for themselves.
Because you cannot fathom that fact, does not invalidate them, only you.“7 Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”
The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.
To quote my lawyer friend: 'Asked and answered' - in this case at '... Pad A, Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, Fla., on Nov. 9, 1967. Credit: NASA.' (quote from:
https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html)
“8 Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon
Citing a source that states we went to the Moon to prove we didn't go to the Moon circular logic noted.
“9 How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”
I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition
Referencing a source that discusses the samples taken from the Moon to prove we did not go to the Moon. Circular logic #2 noted.
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”
A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.
Prove it. Show your math. I guarantee I won't understand it, but I know others here will. Show your evidence (the 'It didn't happen because: 'disbelief' is old, tired, and used up)
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”
Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g) so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.
After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.
Looks can be deceiving. You also forgot to quote your source on the paragraph with the math (the one in italics).
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”
On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.
Even
I know this a bogus statement, and I am not even an expert in this area!
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”
It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?
Where is the video showing this was faked? Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing you there when it was made.
Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?My questions to you are simple:
What do you hope to gain from this?What is your payoff?-and-
How is that working for you?
