|
Post by gillianren on Aug 22, 2008 18:58:09 GMT -4
If it would make for an interesting thread, I could say all kinds of crazy things. But could you say them with such a straight face? How would you know if he did or didn't?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 22, 2008 19:12:03 GMT -4
I would like to say thanks to John for bringing some of his theories to the forum. He doesn't have a theory. All John did was tell us what crazy things he believes.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 22, 2008 19:28:46 GMT -4
Do you guys realize he left on page 16?
He didn't specifically say he was never coming back, but you can certainly read his last post and get that impression.
You may find it interesting when someone can't make an idea work without redefining large portions of reality, but I don't. Especially when I'm being called closed-minded for not buying it.
His last comment about how "entrenched scientific dogma can be" is particularly irritating when the "entrenchment" in this case is simply the unwillingness to adopt propositions that are contradicted by direct observation. Science isn't dogmatic or inappropriately entrenched when its prevailing theories accurately predict the observable behavior of the universe.
I'm going to enjoy writing the Clavius article about this one. I think Der Voron has finally been dethroned as the most delusional conspiracy theorist ever.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 22, 2008 20:11:24 GMT -4
I wonder how BobB took that!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 22, 2008 20:14:51 GMT -4
While it appears that he has left, if John does come back I'd like to know two things.
1) There are many mockups of the LM that were used for training. One was placed in a vaccum chamber and the suited astronuats climbed in and out of it many times in front of witnesses and there is I believe even video of them doing so, at least references to the training indicate it was filmed like most of the training. Another mockup was created and placed in the "Vomit Comet" where the astronauts practiced entering and exiting through the mockup in 1/6 g. This one I have footage of myself, on I believe one of my Spacecraft Films Apollo 9 DVDs. Given that these props and practices took place, why would they make the door to the LM they used for the photography smaller than those they built for the training props? Also how would the Astronauts have gotten out if the hatch was too small? If they had to remove their backpacks to get in and out, then why did no one notice the hatch was too small and get it fixed?
2) Since the time of Glasnos the information on the Soviet Manned Lunar program has become availible. The Soviet program extended to 1974 and involved the training of Cosmonauts for the Lunar missions, as well as testing of their own Lander (the LK) and Command Module (the LOK). If not for the failure of their main heavy lifter, the N-1, the Soviets program would likely have been a success. If the Soviets and the US were working together on their programs, and the US faked a Lunar Landing, why did the Soviets not fake one as well? Why did their program end in one of the greatest Soviet space era failures rather than a "successful" landing?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 22, 2008 20:17:52 GMT -4
Isn't the standard answer that the Russians were paid off with wheat?
They got the bread, America got the circususussssss...
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 22, 2008 21:02:57 GMT -4
If it would make for an interesting thread, I could say all kinds of crazy things. But could you say them with such a straight face? NASA purposefully ground the Hubble mirror to the wrong specification because they were hiding three missions to the moon in July, September and November 1990 that planted supposed Apollo-era artifacts there. Bravo! Very well done. A straighter face has not been seen since man visited the moon.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 22, 2008 21:07:32 GMT -4
Here is a photograph that I think is applicable to the discussion: This is from a book published in 1964. The photo is of a mockup off an early version LM. The round hatch was eventually change to the final 32-inch square hatch. Note that Pete Conrad has plenty of clearance in the hatchway. Granted, the suit Conrad is wearing is not as bulky as the lunar EMU, but the hatchway is not as roomy as the final version either. The main point of this photo is that it is evidence the astronauts where working closely with Grumman as early as 1964 to resolve such problems as astronaut egress and ingress. To suggest that somehow the hatch ended up being too small for the astronauts to pass through is both ignorant and absurd. (EDIT) For those who may not be able to read the photo caption, it says: For those of you too young to have lived through the Apollo era, it was common for the LM be referred to as the "bug" in lay conversation. This term failed the survive the the post-Apollo period. Furthermore, the abbreviation LEM (lunar excursion module) was later shortened to just LM (lunar module), though the pronunciation remained. Finally, the plan to use parachute-like harnesses was abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 22, 2008 21:10:51 GMT -4
Nice work Bob!
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Aug 22, 2008 21:48:23 GMT -4
I thought I recognized that photo.
Life Science Library, Man and Space, by Arthur C. Clarke, Copyright 1964 and 1966, page 139.
Why, yes, I am a showoff. Why do you ask? ;D
Great pre-Apollo 11 book on the space program. Bought it for a dollar in a used bookstore.
Bob B, any other good period books that you can recommend about the space program?
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 22, 2008 22:42:17 GMT -4
If it would make for an interesting thread, I could say all kinds of crazy things. But could you say them with such a straight face? The Moon landings were faked in New Jersey. The evidence is in a song with the line, "New Jersey in the morning's like a lunar landscape . . ." There are people who think that there are clues from whistleblowes in James Bond films. Wouldn't suprise me if someone actually thought that for real. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ohDdNRq2Og
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 22, 2008 23:21:12 GMT -4
About fifteen years ago, one of my neighbors in the other half of our duplex told me that NASA was hiding something, and that is why the Hubble mirror was ground the way it was. He was serious -- and the even scarier thing was that he had a Ph.D. He didn't say what they were hiding, so I just made that part up.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Aug 23, 2008 0:24:05 GMT -4
Hi all: I almost feel like apologizing. That was kind of embarrassing. Mr. Lear’s contribution to this thread was basically making a statement of faith and not even bothering to defend it, while telling even fancier tales in reply to questions about his first tale. To somebody who asked if it was really John Lear, I think the answer is yes. One of my aerospace pals was reading some of my posts at ATS, which was Lear’s regular Internet abode until recently, and one thing led to another, resulting in that email to me which began this sorry thread. It certainly seems like the John Lear that posts to ATS, but I have not seen him behave quite like that. While I can understand Lear’s reaction to vanilla breasts and other comments, ATS is a troll haven, as I discovered: www.ahealedplanet.net/critics.htm#troll2and Lear himself was banned when he began posting there, before the ATS folks realized his audience-building potential. Lear is used to getting assailed far more belligerently than by the relatively gentle jabs that this forum dished out (and he gave almost as good as he received on this thread). In his favor, when he mentioned that the old scientists have to die off so the young ones raised with the ideas can accept them, he was paraphrasing Max Planck: www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#realbut all too often, such people throw out nonsense and then quote Planck and friends as if it somehow bolsters their case. That kind of behavior gives fringe science a bad name. In my adventures, I have encountered several people, who usually have a military background, but sometimes with academic or other establishment credentials, who join the side of the “conspiracy theorists” and others who probe the depths of JFK, 9/11, UFOs, global elites and so on, but they then proceed to harm the efforts in one way or another (attacking their new “friends,” proposing “theories” that go way, way out there, to discredit those whose efforts they joined, subtle sabotage, etc.). What a world. Best wishes, Wade
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 23, 2008 1:03:42 GMT -4
Cheers Wade. Whatever his past achievements, Mr Lear has gone right off the deep end with the latest claims.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 23, 2008 1:43:27 GMT -4
Wade, it's not your fault that his ideas don't mesh with reality. Frankly I'm disappointed, but in him; not in you.
|
|