|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 29, 2008 9:15:59 GMT -4
I've been sparring with some hoaxheads lately. Sure, I know I can't win. But it's still amusing for a while. It's kinda like skeet & trap shooting:
Pull! ... "There are no stars!" Blam!
Pull! ... "They murdered Gus!" Blam!
Pull! ... "Radiation!" "Radiation!" Blam!....Blam! (that was a double)
etc.
I've also learned how to tell when the other guy knows you've won: when they resort to the phrase "NASA stooge". Paraphrasing a recent discussion:
HB: "SELENE's recreations of the A-15 surface pictures prove nothing. The Apollo 'surface' pictures were faked from unmanned Lunar Orbiter photos"
Me: "I can't seem to find that Lunar Orbiter photo, can you? And, um, SELENE also saw the descent engine mark, and it looks just like the one seen by the CSM metric camera after the landing but not before"
HB: "Uh, well, what do you expect from those NASA-stooge Japs..."
(I did tell him that WW2 ended 63 years ago).
Which leads me to think -- wouldn't this make a great T-Shirt if Clavius ever opens up a web store?
NASA Stooge -- and proud of it
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 29, 2008 11:28:33 GMT -4
It's a badge of honour -- wear it well!
Same for PAN (Pro Apollo Nutter). And there are probably a few others.
Are your discussions on another forum that we can take a look at? We're going through one of our quietest periods here.
Whenever you hit an HB with a good fact, cup your ears and listen carefully. You'll probably hear the sound of the goalposts being shifted.
|
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 29, 2008 11:58:21 GMT -4
Whenever you hit an HB with a good fact, cup your ears and listen carefully. You'll probably hear the sound of the goalposts being shifted. You don't have to listen too hard. It is a horrible screeching sound similar to fingernails on a chalkboard! |
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 29, 2008 20:45:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 30, 2008 0:52:35 GMT -4
I'm not a NASA stooge...I can just think, and learn, for myself.
It's not rocket science...well, maybe some of it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 30, 2008 5:37:14 GMT -4
I sense the birth of a new version of Godwin's Law (let's call it Windley's Law) which states that ...
"As an Apollo Hoax discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Shills, Stooges, or variations thereof, approaches one."
|
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 30, 2008 7:30:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 30, 2008 7:44:38 GMT -4
Are your discussions on another forum that we can take a look at? We're going through one of our quietest periods here. If you are bored, you could always go to Yahoo!Answer At least one Moonhoax question per day (and about four about the end of the world in 2012), though it's somewhat like shooting fish in a barrel. |
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jul 30, 2008 17:25:53 GMT -4
Are your discussions on another forum that we can take a look at? We're going through one of our quietest periods here. Darn, I was gonna point you at a complete train wreck that occured on www.kiwibiker.co.nz - but the mods saw what a mess it was and merged it into a junk accumulation thread. (It was fun - a guy comes on with "let's have a science quiz" - but the title of his thread gave too good a hint at what he was going for. His first question was "if you put crosshairs on the lens of a camera, what would you expect to see?". So obviously a moon-hoax lead-in. But then, later, he turned out to be a young-Earth-creationist-anti-big-bang-moon-hoax believer. Stunning.) There's a new moon-hoax thread on www.trademe.co.nz (In Community / Message Board / Opinion) but I'm at work and can't give you a link. In any case - there was no conent from anyone (except from "DBB"... :-) ). |
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 31, 2008 1:19:23 GMT -4
His first question was "if you put crosshairs on the lens of a camera, what would you expect to see?". Dude actually thought the "crosshairs" were on the lens?  (or are you paraphrasing?) BTW, my answer to a question phrased thusly would be "Extremely fuzzy if at all visible crosshairs." Is that what he was going for, or something more along the lines of "Crosshairs which would not be obliterated by the (over?-)exposure of extremely bright objects on the film, such as white-clad astronauts, white-painted equipment, or white stripes of an American flag."  |
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2008 10:07:06 GMT -4
Yes, I thought "pretty dumb question" if he really did say "if you put crosshairs on the lens of a camera, what would you expect to see?" If he meant "what would you expect to see in the viewfinder?", which the lunar surface Hasselblads didn't have anyway, I'd answer "probably nothing different at all," because they could only appear at a very small aperture, if at all, but then the viewing screen would be so dark that they probably wouldn't be visible. And if he meant "what would you expect to see on film?", my answer would be the same as Data Cable's.
What is rarely mentioned about the "disappearing crosshairs" is that the "disappearance" often only occurs in digitised photos. It's there on the original films and the duplicate transparencies, negatives, or prints, but the line is too fine to appear in a digitised copy. Although it may have even appeared in the original digitisation, but many copies on the internet (for instance, some of Kip Teague's, I believe) are reduced in size from the first scan, so the fine line is more likely to disappear during the reduction.
If the hoax-believing clowns did proper research and went back to the earliest possible generation of the picture, they might be surprised to see the entire crosshair there. But naturally they'll merely claim that Nasa drew it back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2008 10:31:02 GMT -4
There's a new moon-hoax thread on www.trademe.co.nz (In Community / Message Board / Opinion) but I'm at work and can't give you a link. In any case - there was no conent from anyone (except from "DBB"... :-) ). Thanks pzkpfw. Here it is, posts 17-19, 82, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96, plus help from four or five others. The thread has its usual low standard of nonsense from some people who are just "having fun." I was astonished to have one guy say, in post 90, "yes i have accepted your explanations to those topics, i havent viewed all of them as yet...but intend to do so..." [at Clavius]. Woo hoo, how about that? One of the few times that's ever happened. And I wasn't even very polite to him. Did I get this right, for a short answer about the Russians pulling out of the moonlanding race: "The basic answer is that their N1 rocket (the equivalent of the American Saturn V) kept blowing up. Initially they were away ahead of the US in rocketry, but the US eventually caught up and passed them. However, The USSR sent rockets around the moon and soft-landed craft on it, just like the US did." I think it was an answer I saw here. It's not easy to debate there, because posts are limited to about nine lines of 10 pt Arial, don't have tabs or paragraphs, and can't be edited. Also, the threads disappear into cyber space a few days after the last post. However, last night in the auction section I picked up an apparently brand-new hardcover copy of First Man (Neil Armstrongs biography) for only $9.50 plus $5 postage, so I could be a happy chappy when it turns up in a few days. It retails here for $56 and the paperback for $27. |
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Jul 31, 2008 16:55:32 GMT -4
Dude actually thought the "crosshairs" were on the lens? (or are you paraphrasing?) BTW, my answer to a question phrased thusly would be "Extremely fuzzy if at all visible crosshairs." Is that what he was going for, or something more along the lines of "Crosshairs which would not be obliterated by the (over?-)exposure of extremely bright objects on the film, such as white-clad astronauts, white-painted equipment, or white stripes of an American flag." Yes! I knew he was wrong, but just gave him some information about emulsion bleed (to which his rebuttal was a picture that had none of the very bright areas seen in his previous example - with the question "no 'emulsion bleed' here?"). Several other members who obviously knew a fair bit about optics and cameras gave him a very good response, pulling his post to bits in ways I'm sure he never imagined were possible. The funny ( and frustrating bit), was his continued claim of "science". Later he introduced a "hockey stick" kind of graph that showed how the Earth "must be" young else there'd be too many people running around. There was an earlier rise on the graph, that suddenly cut-off at a point labelled "global flood" (or similar). If you really want to see: www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1649913&postcount=10532Warnings: 1. That site has different "rules" than here. 2. Even the Moon landing stuff degenerated into people basically swearing at the OP (out of frustration). 3. That thread got merged into a junk thread, so it might be difficult to follow. 4. You might even need to be a member to view it. 5. You shouldn't try to view it. 6. The site has recently added ads to cover costs, but I fully believe it to be free of spyware and such. ---- Good stuff Kiwi. At work (I changed job 4 months ago) trademe is blocked and I've been busy at night. So I didn't get into that thread - but knew it was in good hands. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 31, 2008 17:04:20 GMT -4
It is a little more complicated, but in essence, yes. After the US announced plans for landing on the moon in 1961, the Soviets started looking into it. It took until 1964 for Khrushchev to declare that they had to go though. The Soviet plan was to do a dual system of remote controlled rovers and manned missions with a goal towards a permanent base. Trouble started early. Khrushchev who was the main political sponser was removed from power. Sergei Korolev died from complications with surgery and there was major infighting between the various Soviet space groups over resources. The trouble here was that unlike the US who where running both their manned and unmanned programs in concert to achieve a manned landing, the Soviets had four programmes all in competition, their unmanned exploration, their manned space station, their unmmaned lunar, and their manned lunar programmes. As a result their programmes were under funded, under resourced, and refused to work together.
Unable to replicate the US success with the F1, the only option was to go with the more complex 30 engine behemoth, the N1. Without the funds to construct a facility to test it, they had to launch with untested models. This meant that unlike the US whose testing discovered and was able to correct the inherrent instabilities of the F1 engine before launch attempts, the Soviets mistakes in their systems resulted in big explosions.
The lack of success with the N1 and the continued issues with the rocket finally killed the programme. The Soviet leaders decided that it was sucking up money and resources from the more successful programmes and with the US having abandoned Apollo, they esentially wrapped up the programme and hid its existance. Prior to that however, all of the Lunar technology that they had built had been tested, with only the N1 failing. The LOK, LK and LI stages of the N1 all worked fine in their tests and had they actually been able to launch a mission, it likely would have been a success as well. It's likely that given more money that the designers could have fixed the N1, the final test launch failed from pogo, that same issue that damaged the Apollo 6 Saturn V and caused the central engine shutdown on Apollo 13.
Still during that time the Soviets did have a lot of success in their other missions, Venera 3-8, The Luna programme had obital success with 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19, and landings with 13, 16, 17, 20 and 21, including the two rovers Lunokhod 1 and 2 (landed with Lunar 17 and 21). With the manned spacestation programme they did have a number of setbacks, namely the failed docking of Soyuz 10 and the deaths of the Soyuz 11 crew, but they had still successfully launched a spacestation and docked with it.
In the same time period, the US got the jump on the Soviets in that they were geared fully to one goal, the moon. They didn't have a lot of competing programmes for the resources. This allowed them to run the Gemini programme to determine and smooth out any issues with flying and docking in space, as well as allowing them to fully test all of the components for the Saturn V before it was flown. That testing proved crucial when the F1 engine was found to be unstable and required a lot of effect and back to the basics for the designers to come up with a solution. It was this focused approach by the US that saw them able to leap-frog the Soviets who were really trying to do everything at the same time. It did mean that the Soviets still had a lead in things like space station technology, but it also lead to cut corners and failed missions, which resulted in lives being lost and goals failed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 31, 2008 19:35:03 GMT -4
I keep meaning to do a photoshop of Larry, Curly, and Moe in Apollo-era excursion suits (helmets off, of course).
(Also had the idea of same with Men in Black suits and sunglasses, for the more all-conspiracy "Government Stooge.")
I enjoy the population graph claim. It's fun to work backwards, and point out that the Roman Army would have only needed one Centurion (as they only had a hundred men), or that the entire population of Egypt had to be enlisted to build the Pyramids...and they were very, very busy.
Between the "I corrected Jay Utah," the "Babbling BAB Maggots" and this new "NASA Stooge and proud of it" shirts, I think we should open an account at Cafe Press....
|
|
(or are you paraphrasing?)
