|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 20, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -4
I think most HB's are confused by this because they don't understand the question.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 20, 2011 14:21:49 GMT -4
Armstrong needs to explain what he said He said exactly what he meant. He didn't recall seeing stars under the conditions that he was specifically asked about. No other explanation is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Nov 20, 2011 14:25:43 GMT -4
2) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Collins, I don't recall, either. the guy orbited the moon, there was a side in darkness. - about which he said in his book as already pointed out to you by laurel on page 44 #651: " Outside my window, I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the Moon to be, there is simply a black void; the Moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars." There are no contradictions.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 14:39:14 GMT -4
the unanswered contradictions and oddities are what promotes the hoax theories. the one that recently made up my mind on this issue STARS...
You cited examples from many different contexts, and not very accurately, and say that they contradict each other. I can point to many different examples of seeing or not seeing stars on Earth in just the same way. According to your reasoning, that means I've never really been on Earth. or as i asked before where is the science to support him...
You don't understand the science, even though it's already been explained to you by multiple different posters.
Why do you think that your list of badly-characterized, context-free quotes and misquotes actually disproves Apollo, rather than simply adding up to your failure to understand their significance? Especially since you are manifestly less familiar with what was actually said than just about everyone else here?
I ask you again: given your lack of expertise, history of whopping mistakes, and admitted ignorance of the science* behind Apollo -
Why do you not question your own belief that you are right and all the experts are wrong with regard to the Apollo missions actually happening?
Why won't you simply answer this question?
ETA: Forgot to include this - you have yet to back up your sole claim of relevant expertise, i.e., with regard to soil mechanics ("I know dirt"). Still waiting.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 20, 2011 15:04:26 GMT -4
I think it's the most important question Playdor has been asked, and I don't think we're going to get an answer. Any time a specific field is brought up (except, oddly, "dirt"), we are told that Playdor doesn't know anything about it in particular. And yet he's perfectly willing to assume that he's right in his expectations about it and that everyone else, regardless of their expertise and education, is wrong. There are all kinds of interesting terms for that kind of thinking, and not one is complimentary.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 20, 2011 15:14:31 GMT -4
just the fact that at least one shuttle astronaut commented on seeing stars as the blackness of space started to appear...while taking off in the day light negates this eye not being able to adjust argument. Even though the Shuttle takes some ten minutes to reach orbit? By the way, if you raised this earlier I missed it. Do you have a source for this astronaut quote? Who was it and which mission?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 20, 2011 16:21:49 GMT -4
the unanswered contradictions and oddities are what promotes the hoax theories. They have been answered. Every single one of them. You (and the other hoaxers) simply refuse to accept those answers, or even to give them any serious thought. So why do you keep asking if you're not interested in the answers? Do you expect us to break down like the true murderer on the witness stand during an episode of Perry Mason and confess that, yes, we personally hoaxed the Apollo missions?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 20, 2011 19:03:33 GMT -4
another article talked about building a structure on the moon that would have 5 foot thick walls to protect from radiation. why wouldn't they just use a few layers of aluminized Mylar? Any structure on the Moon would be there far longer than the few days that Apollo was. Radiation exposure is cumulative.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 20, 2011 19:07:38 GMT -4
the unanswered contradictions and oddities are what promotes the hoax theories. the one that recently made up my mind on this issue STARS 1) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Armstrong not seeing and not recalling seeing stars from the moon 2) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Collins, I don't recall, either. the guy orbited the moon, there was a side in darkness. Both replies in answer to a question about seeing stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA. They were referencing that particular experiment.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Nov 20, 2011 23:36:15 GMT -4
I just lost an entire carefully-written post, so here's the short version. This is Quikrete (tm) this time instead of flour, the largest rock is about 2" long. Quikrete is much denser and less friendly to compression than flour. Rocks scattered on the surface: The two largest rocks were placed on top of 2" thickness of the material and an impression made: The largest rock isn't covered, but it did sink partially and the bootprint is nicely formed immediately around it. This looks similar to playdor's result. The second largest rock, about an 1-1/2" (~3.5 cm) long, has disappeared completely under the ball of the foot. According to playdor, this is impossible. I may not "know dirt", but this is direct refutation of playdor's claim. Clearly, neither of us has used a high-fidelity lunar simulant, but within the range of our simulated lunar bootprints, we can see a wide range of behavior encompassing the Apollo 11 bootprint in question.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 20, 2011 23:48:45 GMT -4
I've found Portland cement to be a suitable mechanical simulant. With coal ash added, it can also be a very good optical simulant, minus the spherules.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 21, 2011 0:38:30 GMT -4
SCIENTIST? your funny this is a waste of my time Yes. Yes it is. But it's too bad you don't understand why it is.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Nov 21, 2011 2:55:02 GMT -4
I've found Portland cement to be a suitable mechanical simulant. With coal ash added, it can also be a very good optical simulant, minus the spherules. Even the spherules could be simulated for fairly minimal cost: colesafety.com/product.sc?productId=39A lot cheaper than jarrah's $300 bucket of inappropriately sized dirt.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 24, 2011 0:05:44 GMT -4
Then tell me where a shadowed area can be seen? Tell me what you measured or estimated the phase angle to be?
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Nov 24, 2011 3:24:13 GMT -4
"does it matter what the sun angle is ?"
I have spent a lot of time observing and photographing the moon through a telescope. And IMO yes the angle of the sun makes a lot of difference. Through a telescope there are only noticeable shadows right on the day/night terminator when the sun is at a very low angle.
|
|