Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Luke Pemberton]

I am sure that it was an episode with Tom Baker, and someone aged really quickly and/or became a skeleton. I am not confusing this with Indian Jones, as I remember being sat in the front room in Burntwood.

That sounds like 'City of Death', and more specifically the cliffhanger to Part Three, in which Professor Kerensky gets caught in his own time experiment by the villain of the piece and ages to a skeleton right before the closing credits crash in. That was broadcast around October 1979 (I was born mid-way through that serial!).

I was either 8 or 9, being an October baby. I'll check it out, but that sounds like exceptional Dr Who knowledge - kudos. Right, before LO judges we are off topic, shall we end this here?

[najak]

I told you that insulting me and calling me names is no way to get what you want. You will show me and the other members of the forum respect or you will be banned permanently.

You have other threads to conclude properly first. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say. Go start a blog.

I'm only providing what seems to me as an accurate analogy of how these forums are run.  I cannot conclude a thread unless I concede to a preset conclusion.   That's how the Salem Witch Trials were run.  Also the same as how the Central Park 5 were interrogated/harassed, until they confessed to crimes they didn't commit.   If I don't agree with you, I cannot bring up any new threads.

Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.  Otherwise, all others are resolved:

1. Lunar Launches Too Fast --  conceded, this is not proof.   It can be explained.
2. Sand Falls Too Fast -- conceded, this is too ambiguous, given the poor resolution of footage, and limitations on single-lens photographs.
3. 8 Flag Motions Unexplained -- this one Stands Non-Debunked, and people simply stopped trying to defend the Apollogy - because it holds no weight.  No viable explanation exists, that anyone here seems aware of.   You closed this, with an erroneous conclusion that I wouldn't discuss this anymore -- when the obvious truth is that NO ONE ELSE would discuss it with me.   It currently stands firmly NON-DEBUNKED.

===
So from 4 threads to 1..   It's time to introduce a few new topics for discussion.

[LunarOrbit]

I told you that insulting me and calling me names is no way to get what you want. You will show me and the other members of the forum respect or you will be banned permanently.

You have other threads to conclude properly first. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say. Go start a blog.

I'm only providing what seems to me as an accurate analogy of how these forums are run.  I cannot conclude a thread unless I concede to a preset conclusion.   That's how the Salem Witch Trials were run.  Also the same as how the Central Park 5 were interrogated/harassed, until they confessed to crimes they didn't commit.   If I don't agree with you, I cannot bring up any new threads.

Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.  Otherwise, all others are resolved:

1. Lunar Launches Too Fast --  conceded, this is not proof.   It can be explained.
2. Sand Falls Too Fast -- conceded, this is too ambiguous, given the poor resolution of footage, and limitations on single-lens photographs.
3. 8 Flag Motions Unexplained -- this one Stands Non-Debunked, and people simply stopped trying to defend the Apollogy - because it holds no weight.  No viable explanation exists, that anyone here seems aware of.   You closed this, with an erroneous conclusion that I wouldn't discuss this anymore -- when the obvious truth is that NO ONE ELSE would discuss it with me.   It currently stands firmly NON-DEBUNKED.

===
So from 4 threads to 1..   It's time to introduce a few new topics for discussion.

Do you want to say goodbye?

[JayUtah]

BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college.

What you learn in beginning classes is chiefly Newtonian physics, but it isn't all of Newton's physics. The evidence in this forum and elsewhere supports the explanation that your issues with Apollo are the result of your not knowing enough Newtonian physics—and in the larger sense, not knowing enough of other kinds of things that affect your claims. You aren't justified in discouraging belief in things that cannot be explained by subsets and simplifications aimed at beginners, or that fail to manifest themselves in your lazy research.

If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion.

But in actual argument you put the cart before the horse and insist that the only solutions you will accept as a refutation for claims made from ignorance—claims foisted as reversals of the burden of proof—are those that appeal to simplified concepts that you already understand. Now you've gone so far as to champion an incorrect solution simply because it appeals to your limited understanding, doesn't require you to learn or understand what actually is happening, and gives you an excuse to publicly stroke your ego. The issue is not that the LM liftoff has fallen out of scope; it's that you've tried to shoehorn it into a scope you can grasp—and that for the purpose of maintaining the illusion of competence if not outright superiority.

If Rocket science can't justify the "net force output" - then simple physics shows the failure.   In this case, Static Pressure Thrust at takeoff, suffices to provide a feasible explanation for the added early acceleration.  And if it doesn't, then it requires too much complexity to make this route meaningful.

No amount of handwaving justifies accepting a wrongly reasoned method, including handwaving to the effect that the number it produces falls in the same ballpark as your expectation. No amount of failure on anyone's part to imagine what might have happened justifies concluding that someone somewhere is faking something. And yes, investigating happenstance occurrences will almost always eventually outstrip even the best investigator's ability to obtain discriminating facts for some nuance. The parsimonious path in that case is not to assume the worst as you have done.

[Mag40]

Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.

Logic of a toaster. The dish doesn't comport with the motion of the LM, were it in gravity! It stops moving even as the LM carries on turning and when it does a massive right-directional yaw. You ignored this!

2. Sand Falls Too Fast -- conceded, this is too ambiguous, given the poor resolution of footage, and limitations on single-lens photographs.

I will call you that which you demonstrably are. Cowardly evading questions back at you. Nobody cares about your concessions when you run away from things that you cannot answer honestly, let alone explain. The answers given by you in that thread are just obfuscation.

[najak]

Do you want to say goodbye?

No.  But I do want this forum to be managed with neutrality, as it should be.   You can insult me all you want, but preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.

I've concluded all but ONE now, so it's time to bring up 2 more... have 3 active threads at a time, is a reasonable/throttled approach.

[JayUtah]

...preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.

No. You've demonstrated a disposition to Gish-gallop your way out of discomfort. You're simply being prevented from employing a well-known method of evasion.

[najak]

Also, the only unresolved thread now is the Apollo 12 Dish Flinging incident.

Logic of a toaster. The dish doesn't comport with the motion of the LM, were it in gravity! It stops moving even as the LM carries on turning and when it does a massive right-directional yaw. You ignored this!

Read my explanation again - I believe it was motorized (or had braking mechanism)... during "forced tracking" was in neutral, but put back into gear at the very end of the pendulum settling.  Thus it was locked into that position from that point forward.

I'm still wondering how an Apollogist can explain this blatant snap/failure/flopping of the S-Band without loss of transmission, and no acknowledgement in the journal or report.   And the settling out of the dish mimicked a pendulum with some hinge friction as would be expected.

[Luke Pemberton]

BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college.

Absolutely not. Have you a degree in physics? Have you taught physics at university?

Your obsession with Newton is telling. In reality you have produced an argument based on applying linear Newtonian ideas but failed to meet scrutiny when you presented these ideas to an engineer. Again, engineers use physics, but they are not physicists. They are engineers that use physics to design and build real systems. They are involved with real non linear systems, not esoteric mathematics to describe the relationship between mass, time and length.

If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion.  So the more complex Newtonian physics, is also out-of-scope, of what I'd call Simple Physics.  -- F = MA,   and E = F * D, etc.

Newtonian physics is Newtonian physics. You miss the point. It's how we apply the Newtonian physics in the first place. High school is linear, real world engineering can be non linear. The real world obeys Newton very well, but if one is dealing with transient properties then the math becomes harder and we need to resort to calculus. Jay said it in a previous reply. Newton developed the calculus before he could describe the physics. High school presents Newton without the need for calculus.

If Rocket science can't justify the "net force output" - then simple physics shows the failure.

No, simple physics does not show the failure. Applying physics without the prerequisite understanding of of calculus and its relationship to Newtonian physics is the failure. Stockton Rush thought he could apply simple ideas. Say no more.

[najak]

No. You've demonstrated a disposition to Gish-gallop your way out of discomfort. You're simply being prevented from employing a well-known method of evasion.

Gish Gallop is when someone avoids the rebuttal/concession of bad points....  and in so avoiding this rebuttal, leave a less-informed audience to believe that "maybe those points are valid".

I have taken each of my threads to conclusion, not avoiding ANY debate.  They are fully discussed, with counterpoints made.   3 of the 4 threads are now concluded.  And the 4th is likely close -- as I'm in the mode of inviting a final round of closing arguments from the Apollogists.  So far, no takers.  At which point, this thread will ALSO become concluded.

Three well-discussed threads at a time, is an appropriate volume of threads, as some will get stuck/stumped/paused.  For NONE of these will I be employing Gish Gallop.

[JayUtah]

Gish Gallop is when someone avoids the rebuttal/concession of bad points....

No. A Gish gallop is when a claimant presents a flurry of arguments, none of which he is prepared to support in adequate detail and among which he can switch when things get rough for any one of them. The overall aim is to convey a false impression that there is a lot of evidence in support of a claim, relying on the perception of quantity over quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

You pestered this thread to supply you with a high-level list of all the things that might contribute to the LM liftoff observation. When you were pointed to the list that had already been provided, you latched onto the shock wave item and demanded that we pursue it instead of continuing to lead you through the thermodynamic foundation of the solution we were already many pages into. You want to distract from your eventual failure to carry one particular argument to completion by launching new ones. That you bait others into abetting that process doesn't make it right.

At least twice at this forum you have excused your obligation to provide answers in one thread by saying you had to pay attention to too many threads—all of them threads you started. When you deploy that excuse, it is sensible moderation to prevent you from engaging in behavior that makes the problem worse.

You may think you have resolved all your threads, but you have simply declared victory in all of them and departed the field, refusing to engage in any further debate. If that is your notion of a resolution, then there is no point in allowing you raise new topics that will likely end up the same way.

[najak]

No, simple physics does not show the failure. Applying physics without the prerequisite understanding of of calculus and its relationship to Newtonian physics is the failure. Stockton Rush thought he could apply simple ideas. Say no more.

First off, I took and aced Calculus I & II at Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech.   Then went on to Differential Equations I & II, and Linear Algebra.   A's in all.

Here's my claim - if the Ascent module demonstrates a uniform acceleration of 4 m/s^2 for 1 second, then the Net Force on the Ascent Module can be calculated using F = m * a.   If the Mass is 5000 kg, then the NET force must be 20,000 Newtons.   So subtracting 1.62 m/s^2 for lunar gravity can yield the NET THRUST.

So if nobody can explain how this much NET thrust was achieved, then the acceleration remains "unexplained" (and the claimed Non-debunked).

Are you really disagreeing that you can have NET acceleration of 4 m/s^2 on 5,000 kg with LESS than 20kN of NET force?

This is the only thing I'm claiming.   I backed off of this specific claim when made aware of Static Pressure component and then factoring that into my model, which could have produced a significantly higher EARLY acceleration, such that the remaining 1.4 m/s^2 of the rocket engine at steady state could carry it (nearly) the rest of the way in the final 0.5 sec of the first full second.

Previously, I was simply unaware of the signficance of this other force, nor in the practice of how to estimate/approximate it for the Lunar Module.

Even if I approximated it wrongly -- that's OK -- I concede.    Without the Static Pressure component, nor the existence of a numerically supported Debunk -- I simply stood up this stickman to see if anyone here could shoot it down.   This was NOT MY CLAIM - it's an OLD CLAIM -- for which I simply didn't see ANY debunk yet.   I was simply calling this "NON-DEBUNKED" and going to document it that way.   In the end, it was ME who debunked it -- because no one else could or would.   The debunk wasn't hard; a concept I could teach an engineer how to do in about 15 minutes.

If it's not "Properly debunked" - that's OK with me.  I'm satisfied from my simplified approximations, that such a Debunk is feasible. 

If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax.  I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.

====
I'd like to get your take on the two other threads, for which I have NOT conceded:   8 flag motions, and the A12 Dish Flinging.

[JayUtah]

If there was NO STATIC PRESSURE component - I believe this would have been slam-dunk proof of the hoax.  I could have been made aware of this with a few paragraphs of good faith teaching.

No. You rejected Bob Braeunig's claim to that effect categorically on page 1 of this thread. That it's taken us 30 pages of remedial physics to convince you against your will that such a thing exists is not a sin you get to lay at your teachers' feet. That you've concocted a physically broken argument to justify your reversal does not entitle you to crow about your skill, knowledge, and forthrightness.

[najak]

You may think you have resolved all your threads, but you have simply declared victory in all of them and departed the field, refusing to engage in any further debate. If that is your notion of a resolution, then there is no point in allowing you raise new topics that will likely end up the same way.

"Declared Victory in ALL of them".

Could you say something more nonsensical?
1. This thread -- I've conceded failure.  The Lunar Launch Accelerations appears "feasible to explain".  Defeat.
2. Sand Falls too Fast - I've conceded Ambiguity.   What appears clear to me, cannot be feasibly proven given the low resolution footage, and single perspective photographs.

For the two threads where I have not conceded, would you like to engage?  No one else seems willing:
1. 9 Flag Motions.  5 of which are "towards the LM, in a smooth/slow manner, then held in place".
2. A12 Dish Flinging incident.

If not - then those are concluded as well.

NONE of these have been Gish Gallop style.  For "Shockwave" I was only trying to CLARIFY the NATURE of this contributing factor... Rather than clarifying it for me, you shouted "No Gish Gallop", as usual.

[LunarOrbit]

Do you want to say goodbye?

No.  But I do want this forum to be managed with neutrality, as it should be.   You can insult me all you want, but preventing me from bringing up other hoax claims - demonstrates both bias and fear.

I've concluded all but ONE now, so it's time to bring up 2 more... have 3 active threads at a time, is a reasonable/throttled approach.

I have never banned anyone because I disagree with their hoax theories. It has always come down to their attitude and behavior.

From day one you have had one of the most arrogant attitudes that I've seen in this forum in 20 years You appear to be incapable of accepting that it is your interpretation of the information that is wrong and not everyone else's. You have been repeatedly asked to stop calling people names like "apollogists". You have been repeatedly given answers to your claims, which you repeatedly dismissed or ignored.

I imposed the "no new topics" restriction in order to keep you focused until the claim was resolved to everyone's satisfaction, to prevent you from being overwhelmed by responses, and to respect the time of the other members (they have lives and don't want to waste their time replying to your flood of nonsense).

And let's be clear: I am not required to tolerate anyone that I don't like. I pay for this forum, and I'm not going to pay to be insulted.

I'm giving you one week to change your attitude for the better. There will be no more warnings.