|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 23, 2008 2:31:57 GMT -4
Yep. I have always found Wade to be reasonable in all discussions with him. He admits when he is wrong, stands firm when he is right, and always understands the difference between proof and opinion.
I'm always happy to listen to Wade and discuss his investigations.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Aug 23, 2008 3:53:51 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 23, 2008 9:33:38 GMT -4
Do you guys realize he left on page 16? He said he was leaving. If I had a dollar for every time someone said that and later returned, I'd probably have another 10 or 20 dollars. I think a few of the regulars were happy to have some action too. It would have been a little more interesting if John had actually stayed to try to argue his claims rather than just asserting them. Have a little think about this, Inconceivable. John proposed that the Moon has an atmosphere. Several of us pointed out that if the Moon had an atmosphere, it'd be visible from the Earth. In other words, he made a claim which we know is wrong just by looking at the Moon. He then suggested the Moon only had an atmosphere on its Far Side, thanks to an off-centre centre of gravity. Well, I suppose the idea is plausible, if unlikely. The list of astronomers who thought the Moon had an atmosphere was mostly irrelevant, because most of them lived at a time when scientific investigation of the Moon wasn't possible. Those who lived in the 19th century at least could examine the Near Side of the Moon, but found no supporting evidence. Only two of the astronomers listed lived in a time when we've been able to look at the Far Side of the Moon. Of course, from the 1960s onwards, we've sent spacecraft into orbit around the Moon, and photographed the Far Side. As a result, we have evidence of no atmosphere. When we asked John about this, his response was that the USA and the USSR worked together in space. So I asked for confirmation that this happened at the same time that the USA and USSR were engaged in the Cold War, and got no response. So we have two scenarios: Scenario A: a claim backed by no evidence, and which, if true, requires most of World History for the last 60 years to be rewritten. Scenario B: a claim, backed by evidence, which fits into the wider context of World History. Which do you think is more likely? Yes, I'm interested in John's claim about an atmosphere on the Far Side of the Moon too. But only because I want to know how he thinks he can make such an argument in the face of evidence which goes beyond the scientific.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 23, 2008 9:59:10 GMT -4
If the moon's center of gravity is way off center -- and the higher gravity on the far side allowed the moon to have an atmosphere there -- then the far side of the moon would become the near side, as the higher density of the far side would cause it to swing toward the gravity of the Earth.
This is all preposterous, of course. And one should note that one of John's other claims was that gravity is not caused by mass. So there you have it in a nut case I mean nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by scubadude402 on Aug 23, 2008 10:37:30 GMT -4
John may be back when he has a chance to "reload" wih more crazy ideas from whatever sources. He HAS to believe that the program was hoaxed for some reason known only to himself. It's, to me, such a same when they put so much time,energy and effort into "debunking" something so profoundly documented in history when they could be enjoying and apprectiating the heroic efforts that went into the space program. I wonder if he has ever even visited Kennedy Space Center, or seen any of the hardware close up? I remember going to KSC during the apollo program and being awestruck. Of all the dozens of books written by astronauts themselves, mission controllers, engineers, the hardware builders themselves, etc,etc, and they all agree with each other in every respect with timelines and events. No contradictions at all. Impossible to do if the whole thing was hoaxed. Oh well, i get paid the same thing every two weeks no matter ehat they choose to believe-- but it is a shame.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Aug 23, 2008 11:11:31 GMT -4
Fwiw, the remark that John found offensive, he repeated twice, once with a smiley. As for the remark being sexist, anyone who thinks that is flat-out wrong: My wife is nursing, and that's the sort of joke she and our daughter share and think is hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by dmundt on Aug 23, 2008 11:23:11 GMT -4
I visited KSC in the summer of 1976. The Apollo era was just over and NASA was starting to rework everything for the shuttle. I remember being awestruck by the inside of the VAB and how the doors were big enough to accommodate a stacked Saturn V on a transporter.
One of the most impressive parts of an Apollo mission was the launch. 6 million pounds of vehicle and fuel, launched on a precise trajectory in front of hundreds of thousands of viewers near the cape and millions of viewers on television. And yet hoaxers would have us believe that NASA wasn't up to the task. The launch alone was an incredibly amazing feat.
I try to be patient with HBs, but there is a limit.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 23, 2008 12:24:50 GMT -4
Fwiw, the remark that John found offensive, he repeated twice, once with a smiley. Yes, it did seem that John initially found the joke amusing. It wasn't until later that he seized it as an opportunity to claim moral high-ground. It was a calculated move on his part. Typical HB tactic, really. 10,000 words can be written debunking their claims and they'll ignore every word of it except for the one sentence that they perceive as an insult and then spend the next two pages complaining about it. It's just a way to evade the issues and portray themselves as being persecuted.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 23, 2008 14:10:43 GMT -4
You know, speaking as the token girl, I wouldn't say I found the joke terribly funny, but I didn't find it offensive. It might have been funny the first time I heard it, is all I'm saying.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 23, 2008 14:28:31 GMT -4
*Sigh.* It is just as I have always said, conspiracy theories are a religious phenomena. The 'true believers' are just that, believers. And with all the dogmatism that entails. This is why on the rare, rare occasion when they come up with a statement by a respected scientist that later turned out to be wrong, (like the Van Allen claims), they can't seem to understand how we can say ' Yeah, that was then, but further data proved otherwise.'. They expect us to treat the famous scientists of the past like holy prophets, like they do the DVD and self stapled book selling shysters they adhere to. Because people rarely have the imagination to think outside themselves, they expect us to be like them. Let us all work to make sure we aren't
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 23, 2008 15:26:27 GMT -4
I looked up the From the Earth to the Moon video clip that I mentioned early -- it begins at the 24:32 point of the episode Spider. It is not exactly as I remember it. The clip shows a fully suited astronaut backing out of a circular hatchway. This is obviously from the early days before the square hatch was adapted. The astronaut is having some difficulty positioning his body to get his backpack initially through the hatch opening, but once he gets the bottom of the pack to slip past the edge of the hatchway, we see that he fits through with room to spare. It seems pretty clear that with a square hatch the astronaut would have little problem passing through it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 23, 2008 15:43:55 GMT -4
I therefore see a dilemma. The delta-v implies a hyperbolic trajectory and the existence of a free-return trajectory implies an elliptical trajectory. I can’t reconcile this in my mind. Do you have any explanation for this apparent discrepancy? Either my logic is flawed or there is something else going on that I don’t know about, such as a plane change.
Still working on this one. I need to find where I put the PADs for Apollo 11.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 23, 2008 16:10:27 GMT -4
Life Science Library, Man and Space, by Arthur C. Clarke, Copyright 1964 and 1966, page 139. Yep, that's it. Bob B, any other good period books that you can recommend about the space program? I think my father still has some period books that I'd like to eventually get from him. Here's a good one that I currently own: Exploring Space With A CameraCompiled and Edited by Edgar M. Cortright Scientific and Technical Information Division, Office of Technology Utilization National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 1968 The book concludes with Apollo IV (November 9, 1967). From the Introduction: I also have an Astronomy book from 1963, though it is geared toward children. It was one of my favorite books when I was a young boy. There is also a section on Space in a World Atlas that I own dated 1964 (or as it is printed in the book, MCMLXIV).
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 23, 2008 16:21:51 GMT -4
I therefore see a dilemma. The delta-v implies a hyperbolic trajectory and the existence of a free-return trajectory implies an elliptical trajectory. I can’t reconcile this in my mind. Do you have any explanation for this apparent discrepancy? Either my logic is flawed or there is something else going on that I don’t know about, such as a plane change.
Still working on this one. I need to find where I put the PADs for Apollo 11. Thanks, Jay. Please take your time. This is one of those things that has been bugging me because it doesn't make sense to me and I haven't been able to find an answer.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 23, 2008 18:08:53 GMT -4
One of my long-term projects with the Apollo Lunar Flight Journal folks is an accurate 3D model of the Apollo spacecraft trajectories: the translunar and trans-Earth paths. But that seems to have lost momentum (no pun intended).
|
|