Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[JayUtah]

Surely you can sense the unfair treatment I'm receiving here, mostly because I'm a Skeptic of Apollo.

You are not being treated unfairly. You are generally unprepared to support your claims with evidence and generally unwilling to engage criticism of the evidence you do provide. You categorically dismiss reasonable statements from others and constantly try to shift your burden of proof. You are abrasive, arrogant, obsessive, and evasive.

You are being held to an appropriate standard of civility. You are being held to an appropriate standard of proof for your claims. Stop whining.

Perhaps I should have disguised myself as an Apollogist who was dealing with "difficult questions and wanted to know how to Debunk X, Y, and Z".

Other hoax claimants have attempted that approach and were quickly discovered. It should be noted that you had no problem appearing in another forum effectively disguised as an Apollo defender, but were also told there that you were making mistakes. Maybe you should consider that you aren't as proficient as you believe, and that this is the explanation for your ongoing difficulties—not some vast conspiracy to discredit you.

I purposefully came to the place where I believed I could find the best chance of debunking these claims.

You came here insisting that you were the smartest person in the room and arrogantly disrespecting anyone who didn't take your say-so as fact. You aren't entitled to a presumption of good faith. You aren't entitled to expect others to indulge your bad behavior.

[najak]

For ME it works well enough, but that's where it ends.

"Works for me" has nothing to do with its objective correctness. If you want to convince me you no longer have faith in the objective correctness your proposed method, then remove it from publication and issue an explicit retraction.

A couple weeks ago, I updated my document, page 1 and title, as shown here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sJsIUlzdVF3brADa8YwR4XTg59mod-K2ct4jQCSKlyA/edit?usp=sharing

It now reads as follows:
===
Apollo Lunar Launches - MAYBE NOT Too Fast

I have completed the Lunar Launch Speed analysis, and that was a long road to a conclusion that this MLH theory is possibly debunkable, based upon the inclusion of “Static Pressure Thrust”, which may be exceptionally high for the Ascent Launch with a platform directly beneath it.  If so, then NASA may have modeled the acceleration reasonably well when they pulled it up by the cable.

This argument DOES NOT support the MLH theory, unless someone with deeper understanding of Rocket Engines can indicate that this setup of “high static pressure” wouldn’t be extraordinarily dangerous, or grossly interfere with the other forms of thrust (Momentum Thrust) as it reached the 0.5 meter point.  This analysis is above my pay grade, so I will not be attempting any such analysis.

My initial analysis omitted the concept of Static Pressure Thrust, which could be HIGH at take-off.   A re-analysis of 20 Frames of Apollo 16, with a thorough spreadsheet of intermediate results has revealed that it’s possible to explain the acceleration rate with the inclusion of Static Pressure Thrust, while also assuming that the rest of this rocket’s thrust is not reduced by too much.

In short, Static Pressure Thrust could potentially account for enough added boost during the first 0.5 seconds in order to give it the velocity to carry it through to the 1.8 meters high at 1.0 seconds into the flight.

Although personally, I still firmly believe the Human Moon Landings were faked, this particular analysis holds little-to-no weight.  From what I can see, the actual Ascent Module specs/setup, could feasibly produce the acceleration curves witnessed in all 3 Lunar Launches - 15, 16, and 17.

===
For a couple weeks, this claim has been retracted.  I also posted this the same day to the MLH FB page:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Chc7fYbJT/

Teacher may I now be excused from this thread?

[LunarOrbit]

1. 3 of 4 topics are fully resolved.  There is nothing left to be done with them.

As I have said repeatedly, you do not decide when we are done.

2. HB, is far too generic, to include the "Round Earth Hoax", etc, etc....   I am only skeptical of the Moon Landing.
You surely believe the "Gulf of Tonkin" was a hoax... as they all admit it.   This attack that got us into Vietnam was known to be false.  As was the Bush-era WMD evidence -- another Hoax.  So certainly you are a "HB" too, since you believe in at least ONE hoax.

What is the name of this website? Is it gulfoftonkinhoax.net?

Apollogist shouldn't threaten ANYONE.  Apologist is a neutral term, where the apologists themselves self-identify with this term.

That isn't for you to decide.

If you insist that it's so awful and hurts peoples' feelings - please do tell me a short term to describe "those who defend the evidences of the Apollo Moon Landings"?

How about "truth defenders". Or "reality advocates"? Or maybe "the rational people"?

3. You have MANY members here unilaterally declaring victory over me.

If you fail to prove the Apollo moon landings were faked you have lost by default.

[najak]

1. How about "truth defenders". Or "reality advocates"? Or maybe "the rational people"?
2. If you fail to prove the Apollo moon landings were faked you have lost by default.

1. Non-neutral.  That would be akin to labeling me as the "Lie defender", "Fantasy Advocates" and "Irrational people".
How about "Hoax Deniers"-- HD's.   Since the context here is "Apollo" - then HB and HD are the simple neutral two-sides of the debate.

2. Then if you fail to prove the Landings actually happened, you have lost by default.
Why would you assume that "mainstream narratives are true by default"?

If they hadn't blown-the-whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin - this would be the mainstream narrative, whether or not someone could prove it was faked evidence.  250K drafted young men died for this fake evidence, approved by LBJ - the Apollo President.

===
I'd like very much to complete my assessments of various MLH evidences.  I find them compelling.  Many here, do not.  So lets investigate them.   I may still not agree with your conclusions, but we will all get to hear the rational HD's provide.   Isn't that the point of a forum and debate?   Hear both sides; let the audience then decide.

[JayUtah]

A couple weeks ago, I updated my document, page 1 and title, as shown here:
* * *
For a couple weeks, this claim has been retracted.

No, this is the same shell game you've been trying here all day without success. The claim you have retracted in this statement is the claim that a hoax best explains the LM ascent. That's not the same as retracting the claim that you have singlehandedly created a physically correct model that better explains it. If it is still your published belief that you have a physically correct model, then that is still on the table to be challenged here. If you don't want it challenged on the grounds that you no longer believe in its objective correctness, retract that.

Teacher may I now be excused from this thread?

Apparently not.

[JayUtah]

Why would you assume that "mainstream narratives are true by default"?

Asked and answered. In history, a claim of fabrication, fraud, or inauthenticity bears the burden of proof. Aside from that, the Apollo narrative is not held simply because it is mainstream but because there is a wealth of evidence supporting its authenticity—evidence you've been unable to impeach. If we weren't compelled by epistemology to take it as the null hypothesis in a fraud claim, we would be compelled to consider it the established and unimpeached conclusion by virtue of the weight of evidence in favor of it.

If they hadn't blown-the-whistle on the Gulf of Tonkin - this would be the mainstream narrative, whether or not someone could prove it was faked evidence.  250K drafted young men died for this fake evidence, approved by LBJ - the Apollo President.

Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.

So lets investigate them.

You're not raising any new issues. No one is obliged to let you lead them around by the nose in well-traveled paths.

[najak]

No, this is the same shell game you've been trying here all day without success. The claim you have retracted in this statement is the claim that a hoax best explains the LM ascent. That's not the same as retracting the claim that you have singlehandedly created a physically correct model that better explains it. If it is still your published belief that you have a physically correct model, then that is still on the table to be challenged here. If you don't want it challenged on the grounds that you no longer believe in its objective correctness, retract that.

My statement contained ample indications of "uncertainty".   

To satisfy your demands, I've word smithed it to ensure uncertainty is expressed on every single statement, and even highlighted the fact that I am not a rocket scientist.

Anyone reading this is sure to know that I am not qualified nor claiming that my analysis is accurate.

It now reads:
====

I have completed the Lunar Launch Speed analysis, and that was a long road to a personal conclusion that this MLH theory is possibly debunkable, based upon the inclusion of “Static Pressure Thrust”, which may be exceptionally high for the Ascent Launch with a platform directly beneath it.  If so, then NASA may have modeled the acceleration reasonably well when they pulled it up by the cable.

This argument DOES NOT support the MLH theory, unless someone with deeper understanding of Rocket Engines can indicate that this setup of “high static pressure” wouldn’t be extraordinarily dangerous, or grossly interfere with the other forms of thrust (Momentum Thrust) as it reached the 0.5 meter point.  This analysis is above my pay grade, so I will not be attempting any such analysis.

My initial analysis omitted the concept of Static Pressure Thrust, which could be HIGH at take-off.   A re-analysis of 20 Frames of Apollo 16, with a thorough spreadsheet of intermediate results has revealed that it could be possible to explain the acceleration rate with the inclusion of Static Pressure Thrust, while also assuming that the rest of this rocket’s thrust is not reduced by too much.

In short, from the vantage point of a non-rocket-scientist, Static Pressure Thrust could potentially account for enough added boost during the first 0.5 seconds in order to give it the velocity to carry it through to the 1.8 meters high at 1.0 seconds into the flight.


Although personally, I still firmly believe the Human Moon Landings were faked, this particular analysis appears to hold little-to-no weight to this end.  From what I can see, the actual Ascent Module specs/setup, could feasibly produce the acceleration curves witnessed in all 3 Lunar Launches - 15, 16, and 17.
===

Teacher may I please be excused from this thread that I have conceded?

[najak]

So lets investigate them.

You're not raising any new issues. No one is obliged to let you lead them around by the nose in well-traveled paths.

Right, no one is obliged.  Who is forcing anyone to engage?  I find this interesting, as do some others.  Thus the forum and volunteer participation.

[LunarOrbit]

1. Non-neutral.  That would be akin to labeling me as the "Lie defender", "Fantasy Advocates" and "Irrational people".
How about "Hoax Deniers"-- HD's.   Since the context here is "Apollo" - then HB and HD are the simple neutral two-sides of the debate.

The truth isn't neutral. Not all opinions are equal and I won't pretend that they are just to make you feel important.

2. Then if you fail to prove the Landings actually happened, you have lost by default.
Why would you assume that "mainstream narratives are true by default"?

The Apollo landings have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There is photographic and film footage, lunar samples, etc. that have been validated and confirmed by experts worldwide, including from countries that are or were hostile towards the United States. I am satisfied by this overwhelming evidence.

Until you provide me with equally overwhelming proof that Apollo was faked, the default status quo is that Apollo really happened.

I'd like very much to complete my assessments of various MLH evidences.  I find them compelling.

I really don't care. Go start a blog.

Isn't that the point of a forum and debate?   Hear both sides; let the audience then decide.

Yes, we tried that with you. It didn't work out. All we got in return for our efforts was your dismissal of them. You aren't worth our time.

[najak]

Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.

8 flag motions in a vacuum -- appears to be currently unexplained, and possibly unexplainable.  And so far, not seeing anyone here who can refute this claim.  It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that on the moon there is nothing on the other side of the flag to push it towards the LM...  yet something does.

[LunarOrbit]

Apples and oranges. You keep comparing your claims to those made by people who were able to provide testable evidence that then passed the test. All you have is a recitation of things you don't understand.

8 flag motions in a vacuum -- appears to be currently unexplained, and possibly unexplainable.  And so far, not seeing anyone here who can refute this claim.  It's doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that on the moon there is nothing on the other side of the flag to push it towards the LM...  yet something does.

Off topic. Last warning.

[najak]

1. The truth isn't neutral. Not all opinions are equal and I won't pretend that they are just to make you feel important.
2. Until you provide me with equally overwhelming proof that Apollo was faked, the default status quo is that Apollo really happened.
3. Yes, we tried that with you. It didn't work out. All we got in return for our efforts was your dismissal of them. You aren't worth our time.

1. OK, I'll call you TD's - Truth Defenders.  And you can call me an LD - Lie Defender.
2. I'm working on providing some proof, but you aren't allowing it.  Why not allow it?  You have nothing to lose.
3. "aren't worth our time" - if you are correct - then no one will bother to respond.  I'll be debating with no one.

[JayUtah]

My statement contained ample indications of "uncertainty".

Your statement is the same mealy-mouthed double-speak by which you've "conceded" every other point. You still hold out hope that someone smarter than you will agree with you. While you concede you aren't a rocket scientist, you're still insinuating that you've hit upon a viable "static pressure thrust" model. That's an equivocation.

Instead of trying to disguise your retraction in hopeful, noncommittal language, try saying it outright: "After discussing possible explanations with experts, I've concluded that I lack the expertise to investigate this matter thoroughly enough to support any conclusion."

[JayUtah]

8 flag motions in a vacuum...

Not even remotely connected to the point.

[najak]

Off topic. Last warning.

Jay brought it up -- my other posts, saying I was only ranting about things I didn't understand.  This one was an APPROVED THREAD.

I may start my own forums.  I have purchased the URL called "Apollogy.net" for this potential purpose.  Perhaps those who find me worthy of their time can meet me there, where discussions can happen freely with neutral management.  Would you prefer this instead?