|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 18, 2008 9:28:12 GMT -4
Turbonium's latest lengthy attempt at distraction can be addressed fairly adequately with one sentence: science progresses. Inferences from Apollo findings are indeed expected to be revised as new information is added to our body of knowledge.
I agree; it is only marginally related with the argument presented. Attempting to trump up FUD against Apollo scientific findings does not relate to the specific argument that Apollos 8, as claimed, would have been an impossible mission at the time.
Turbonium, you claim James Webb's departure from NASA has to do with the validity of Apollo 8 as a lunar orbit mission. Which is to say, you seem to argue that Webb's behavior raises issues of Apollo 8's validity. Please explain exactly how.
What specifically prevented Apollo 8 from being conducted as a lunar orbit mission as claimed?
What evidence can you present that Apollo 8 was faked? That is not a request for your inference that it "must" have been faked, but a request that you present evidence showing that the record of Apollo 8's mission has been faked.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 18, 2008 11:44:45 GMT -4
Welcome to the forum, chrissyo. Nice first post. Again, just a guess on my part, but I’m pretty sure the Apollo LMs didn’t carry “10 to 20 tons” of gas (though, I’d be interested in knowing the actual amount released). I suspect turbonium is referring to the exhaust gases from the LM’s engines. The LM’s descent and ascent stages carried a total of about 11 metric tons of propellant. For the particular propellant used, the combustion product consisted mostly nitrogen, water vapor, and carbon monoxide.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Apr 18, 2008 18:33:30 GMT -4
]What exactly prevents manned flight beyond low Earth orbit I , for one would love to see this question answered before addressing the other issues since the Apollo 8 mission is the earliest one that he thinks was faked,
I'm assuming that Apollo 9 actually happened, since it didn't leave LEO.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 19, 2008 0:56:19 GMT -4
But why couldn't Apollo 8 leave low Earth orbit? I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). However, when compared to Ares V, and all of its ongoing problems, it's starting to look all the more that it was not possible. But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 19, 2008 1:34:52 GMT -4
Apollo 8's illusion picked up from where Apollo 7's reality left off. What about Apollo 9? Does the fact it never left LEO mean you are prepared to accept that one was real too? Imo, the only aspect of Apollo 9 that most likely needed to be faked was the photo/video footage of LM activity in LEO (undocking, test flights, docking, etc.). I see no reason they would need to fake an LEO mission (in whole or in part) otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2008 1:49:27 GMT -4
However, when compared to Ares V, and all of its ongoing problems...
What exactly are you talking about, and how exactly are they related to Apollo?
But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue.
Specifically what problems?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 19, 2008 1:51:02 GMT -4
Imo, the only aspect of Apollo 9 that most likely needed to be faked was the photo/video footage of LM activity in LEO (undocking, test flights, docking, etc.).
Why would that "need" to be faked? What evidence do you have that it was faked?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Apr 19, 2008 4:19:52 GMT -4
I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back. I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). First you're "convinced" that we "weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO".... now you're not "ruling out the possibility".... So which is it? Was it possible or not? Or are you just waffling here because you cant prove any of what you believe.... But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue. Please state what specific problems you find with Apollo 8. Please also provide any kind of verifiable evidence and their sources for the problems you find with Apollo 8. And please leave out anything that starts with or contains such disclaimers as "I believe" or "it seems to me" or "I don't think it was possible to {insert item here} so it couldn't have happened" or other similar disclaimers / conditions based solely on your opinion. Cz
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 19, 2008 4:27:09 GMT -4
I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). However, when compared to Ares V, and all of its ongoing problems, it's starting to look all the more that it was not possible. This is not answering the question. How does the trouble with Ares V relate to what was done 40 years ago? I repeat the request for evidence that it was faked, not vague inferences that it might be. Then perhaps you'd elucidate them.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Apr 19, 2008 4:29:29 GMT -4
Imo, the only aspect of Apollo 9 that most likely needed to be faked was the photo/video footage of LM activity in LEO (undocking, test flights, docking, etc.). Why would that need to be faked? Was the LM incapable of flight? If so, show evidence that leads you to that conclusion. So, Apollo 9 must have been faked because the LM was fake? What if the LM flight wasn't faked? You're still not providing evidence for your claims, turbonium. Please do so.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 20, 2008 9:44:29 GMT -4
I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). In this post, you flatly stated that Apollo 8 did not leave low Earth orbit: Imo, the hoax began with Apollo 8. The mission was changed from LEO to manned lunar orbit in just a few months. ...
I'm convinced that it had to be faked from the Apollo 8 mission forward, because we weren't capable of manned flight beyond LEO, let alone send men all the way to the Moon and back. Which was it? However, when compared to Ares V, Guess again. You're thinking of Ares I. and all of its ongoing problems, it's starting to look all the more that it was not possible. Diversion noted and ignored. But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue. Kindly defend your claim and answer the specific questions you have been repeatedly asked: What exactly prevented Apollo 8 from leaving low Earth orbit? What specific discoveries, and when, brought this to light? And exactly what specific evidence do you have to support this contention?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 20, 2008 10:29:08 GMT -4
I'm not totally ruling out the possibility (that it was technically feasable for Apollo 8 to leave LEO). I agree with what others have said about this; I have nothing new to add. However, when compared to Ares V, and all of its ongoing problems, it's starting to look all the more that it was not possible. What you call 'ongoing problems' I call 'designing a rocket'. The engineering design process for any launch vehicle includes analyzing and correcting problems as they are identified. The Ares I (not V) issues are not unusual and have no particular relevancy to Apollo/Saturn. But the problems I find with Apollo 8 go well beyond this issue. You brought up the inability to leave LEO issue, so we'd appreciate you finishing that discussion before digressing to other issues.
|
|
|
Post by dickshane on Apr 20, 2008 13:56:33 GMT -4
If I may be allowed the embarrassment of quoting myself in the first post I made on the board:
I don't need to know that much myself about the Apollo missions in order to get a sense of the weakness of the HBs' arguments - I simply follow the form of their arguments as they respond to people who do know about them.
Turbonium here seems a reasonably intelligent, articulate person. But will he address the questions asked of him? Will he engage in a rational debate according to the facts as he understands them? Doesn't seem like it, does it? Perhaps there are other reasons, but I can't help feeling he is deliberately avoiding the issue because he knows that otherwise his belief in a hoax will be taken away from him.
As an onlooker, I've yet to discover any hoax-believer who follows the protocols of rational debate.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Apr 21, 2008 10:35:36 GMT -4
It would be nice to see one point taken to out to fruition. Dashing all over is just a bit of prevarication. I can understand how 8 (and any others including non apollo) left this planet and went to the moon. I fail to see how it could not have achieved its goal. There is nothing against that idea that stacks up. I would like to know what the official HB line is. Or are there many confused ones?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Apr 21, 2008 11:01:14 GMT -4
I would like to know what the official HB line is. Or are there many confused ones? There is no official HB line because they can't decide among themselves what to believe. They just want to believe it was all fake so they make up every excuss they can think of. The fact they're all over the place with their stories is because there is no evidence to support any of it. From my experience, the HBs are usually simply incredulous. They can’t believe flight to the moon possible but are unable to provide an explanation as to why. I’d really like to hear turbonium’s explanation.
|
|