|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 20, 2008 19:36:54 GMT -4
I don't understand that last comment. Perhaps you could correct the phrasing?Pro-hoax arguments frequently suffer from the explanatory fallacy of limited depth. That is, they purport to explain the proximal issue, but the explanation has ramifications elsewhere in the universe that aren't fully reconciled with the explanation. An explanation, in order to be valid in one case, must also explain all other cases in which it would logically apply. The "massive Moon" hypothesis is an excellent example. It seems to answer why the LM is allegedly implausible as designed. But a Moon with substantially more gravity than reported causes problems for other enterprises, aside from Apollo astronautics, that also depend on the precise value of the Moon's gravity. If your explanation cannot also explain how those things work, then it fails its test of completeness. In other words, The Moon's gravity causes ocean tides on Earth. If Newtonian gravity were wrong, and the Moon's gravity were much higher, then the tides would be higher than they are. Another example: The distance from the Earth to the Moon can be measured directly, using parallax (and, more recently, radar). If it's gravity were higher, then it would orbit the Earth faster han we observe it to do. Similarly, for three centuries, astronomers have been using Newton to work-out orbital parameters for hundrdeds of objects within the solar system. Significantly, they have used Newtonian gravity to make predictions that have proven correct. The most famous example is the discovery of Neptune, based on Newtonian calculations of pertubations of Uranus' orbit. However, it also happens all the time, say, when someone wants to have a look at Ceres. They point their telescope at where Newtonian calculations say it should be, and voila! So if you say that Newtonian gravity is wrong, to argue that the LM could not perform as advertised, then you must also explain how your favored theory accounts for 300 years of observations of tides & orbits in a way that is more accurate than Newton.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Aug 20, 2008 19:36:54 GMT -4
That's quite a leap. From what I've read, gravity's cause is explained by Einstien's theories, in that it is a result of matter warping space time. Sure you understand what you're reading, Mr. Lear? It seems you also missed reading that Newton's Laws provide the basis for Kepler's Laws.
Visit a library, and look for any book on Apollo. Two good ones would be "Full Moon" and "Apollo: The Epic Journey to the Moon". A simply viewing of the photos of the Apollo missions will reveal different enviroments. Also, multiple light sources would cause multiple shadows.
It seems, Mr Lear, that you simply are repeating much of what has been said before. And it seems your main source is probably the late Bill Kaysing's book.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 19:46:03 GMT -4
In fact, using the Bullialdus/Law of Inverse Square , correcting for perturbations of the sun, the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit and its phase and a neutral point of 43,495 miles we arrive at the more likely figure of 68.71% of Earth’s gravity. Wadefrazier3, if you are in contact with the person who wrote the above, I ask that you request the derivation be produced along with all supporting documentation for pier review. Thank you. Bob, I'm not interested in any pier review but here are a few of the last emails that Pari and I exchanged. Giordano Brunos pier review got him burned at the stake. Thanks anyway. Edited by LunarOrbit. DO NOT post emails in this forum without the permission of all participants. I will not simply take your word for it that you have their permission.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 20, 2008 19:49:35 GMT -4
You know, there has to have been a smarter way to shut up Gus Grissom than nearly blowing the whole Apollo program.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Aug 20, 2008 19:57:12 GMT -4
I'm only going to address a few of your points, I'm sure others will address the rest I disagree. I have looked carefully at all photos of the area directly under the alleged rocket engine and I can find no evidence of any ray pattern distinct or not. Try looking at this picture: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5870.jpgThat would be because the vehicle that Armstrong ejected from was not using hypergoglic fuels. The LLTV was powered by a downward facing jet engine. When burned in an atmosphere, hypergoglic fuels will produce a somewhat visible plume, but when burned in a vacuum produce little to no visible plume. Here's a rotated crop of the original image (from ALSJ - www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6574.jpg ). The detail of the LM is much clearer. Your image above shows your lack of knowledge of the layout and design of the LM The area you point to in your picture above where there "should be 2 oxidizer and 2 fuel tanks covered in gold foil" is incorrect. Inside the LM Descent Stage, there are 2 fuel tanks and 2 oxidizer tanks - the oxidizer tanks are located in the Descent stage structure behind the forward (with the ladder) landing strut the rear landing strut, the 2 fuel tanks are located behins the two side landing struts. And just exactly who was the alleged 4th astronaut? What proof can you produce to verify this claim? Cz
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 20, 2008 20:21:19 GMT -4
John, you are the one claiming the space suits would not have fit through the forward hatch. You have the burden to explain the method by which you came to this conclusion. Please supply that before suggesting that others have a burden to supply evidence to the contrary.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 20, 2008 20:35:31 GMT -4
Now that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has been decisively proven wrong... Please provide this proof.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2008 21:16:51 GMT -4
You know, there has to have been a smarter way to shut up Gus Grissom than nearly blowing the whole Apollo program. I've never understood that hoax claim either. NASA was so desperate for public support that they faked six Moon landings, but they were willing to have the Apollo 1 crew die a terrible death and cause bad publicity and Congressional investigations? And Wally Schirra was the backup commander of Apollo 1 and he was known to complain a lot too; he went on to fly on Apollo 7, returned safely and lived to be 84. I'd like to know who the alleged fourth astronaut was too. The Soviets had a cosmonaut who died in a fire during training (Valentine Bondarenko), and this was hidden from the public for several years, but after the Cold War the accident was revealed. I think the Americans would have had a harder time hiding something like this, though.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 20, 2008 21:25:24 GMT -4
NASA currently refuses to quote a neutral point. The neutral “point” is, in fact, a sphere surrounding the Moon. This sphere is called the equigravisphere. In rough terms, the equigravisphere is any place in space where the distance to Earth is nine times farther than the distance to the Moon. There are, therefore, an infinite number of points. Settle out of what? The LLRV/LLTV did not use hypergols; the vehicles used hydrogen peroxide. 571 mph/min is only 14 ft/s 2, i.e. less than 1/2 g. Standing for 7 minutes on Earth is harder on your legs than the launch of a LM.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 21:29:09 GMT -4
Now that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation has been decisively proven wrong... Please provide this proof. The Gravitational Force of the Sun by Pari Spolter provides all the proof you need. You can order it through amazon.com or directly from: Orb Publishing Company 11862 Balboa Blvd. #182 Granada Hills, CA 91344-2753 or you wait until I write: The Gravitational Force of the Sun For Dummies.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 21:35:22 GMT -4
I'm only going to address a few of your points, I'm sure others will address the rest That would be because the vehicle that Armstrong ejected from was not using hypergoglic fuels. The LLTV was powered by a downward facing jet engine. Thanks czero. I did not know this. The Moon has a breathable atmosphere equal to about 18,000 feet here on earth. It is not and does not have a vacuum. No more proof than I have that the moon has a breathable atmosphere. But that does not make either statement less true. Thanks for the info on Neils jet engine.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 21:36:30 GMT -4
John, you are the one claiming the space suits would not have fit through the forward hatch. You have the burden to explain the method by which you came to this conclusion. Please supply that before suggesting that others have a burden to supply evidence to the contrary. Thanks Jay. I will get to it eventually.
|
|
|
Post by johnlear on Aug 20, 2008 21:39:27 GMT -4
You know, there has to have been a smarter way to shut up Gus Grissom than nearly blowing the whole Apollo program. There was no Apollo program. It was a hoax. There was nothing to blow up. About 30 days before he was killed Gus hung a lemon over 204 and stated: "This thing ain't going to the moon in 2 years; this thing ain't going to the moon in 10 years." Gus knew it was a hoax as did many of the other Apollo astronauts but he couldn't keep his mouth shut. So NAZA had to help him.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 20, 2008 21:41:03 GMT -4
The Moon has a breathable atmosphere equal to about 18,000 feet here on earth. It is not and does not have a vacuum. No more proof than I have that the moon has a breathable atmosphere. But that does not make either statement less true. You've provided no evidence to show that either statement is less preposterous. It is impossible to take you seriously.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2008 21:41:34 GMT -4
Grissom hung a lemon on the simulator, not the actual Command Module.
|
|