|
Post by ka9q on Nov 18, 2010 8:01:27 GMT -4
The funny thing is, if Jarrah claimed that a manned Apollo could, from low Earth Orbit, be boosted to 25,000 mph, then according to orbital dynamics, he is admitting that a manned Apollo can be flow out to lunar distances. He essentially agrued that Apollo lunar missions were, in fact, done! Yes, that occurred to me too. But his position, like that of most Apollo conspiracy theorists, is not that NASA lacked the rockets or the systems to send hardware to the moon. He claims that NASA couldn't send men to the moon because of the supposedly lethal effects of the Van Allen radiation belts. He's pretty much forced into this position because it's the least silly one he can take without admitting that Apollo was entirely real after all. But it's still quite silly, as he has to concede a lunar robotic ability to explain the radio signals that were received by independent parties. Um, except when he's trying to claim that they weren't independent. Erk...my brain hurts at the silliness of it all...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 18, 2010 11:36:54 GMT -4
Does he actually and secretly desire this persecution? "You don't come here for the hunting, do you?" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Nov 18, 2010 11:44:40 GMT -4
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right."
-- Robert Park
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Nov 18, 2010 21:04:23 GMT -4
The funny thing is, if Jarrah claimed that a manned Apollo could, from low Earth Orbit, be boosted to 25,000 mph, then according to orbital dynamics, he is admitting that a manned Apollo can be flow out to lunar distances. He essentially agrued that Apollo lunar missions were, in fact, done! I like the concept that 25000 mph is so fast that no one can spot it. In terms of speed, while fast, it's still a tortoise in the grand scheme of things. It was worse than that. It was a 25,000 MPH Polar Orbit. His definition of a Polar Orbit? One describing a tight circle around the North Pole, over, say, 80 degrees north. He needed this kind of orbit so that the CSM stack could remain in the perpetual sunshine of the northern polar summer and unobserved from the ground. Another example of how a HB will make up his own physics to prop up the idea that Apollo was hoaxed.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 18, 2010 22:36:50 GMT -4
I like the concept that 25000 mph is so fast that no one can spot it. In terms of speed, while fast, it's still a tortoise in the grand scheme of things. It was worse than that. It was a 25,000 MPH Polar Orbit. His definition of a Polar Orbit? One describing a tight circle around the North Pole, over, say, 80 degrees north. He needed this kind of orbit so that the CSM stack could remain in the perpetual sunshine of the northern polar summer and unobserved from the ground. Another example of how a HB will make up his own physics to prop up the idea that Apollo was hoaxed. Huh? Is this not impossible? Or, would it be possible if you had a vast amount - and I mean a lot- of fuel?
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 18, 2010 22:43:15 GMT -4
While you could probably maintain such a flight plan if you had sufficient* fuel, it would be stretching the definition past breaking point to call it an orbit.
*For values of sufficient that include entirely fictional reaction-less drives powered by equally fictional fusion reactors. Or maybe nuclear-thermal drives set up to harvest remass from the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Nov 19, 2010 0:18:00 GMT -4
Oh, we are talking about the famous polar orbit. Jarrah claims he described the polar orbit as a bit of a wheeze to explore people's ideas and claims regarding the flight of Apollo. Here's Jarrah's polar orbit explanation... www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJuuraAMAUs&feature=related He never actually believed a polar orbit as he described. Mind you, this is a guy who performed calculations that imply Earth's gravity is 216 times greater than the Moon, so I never know what to believe.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 19, 2010 1:40:50 GMT -4
I would, however, like to point out that the average person doesn't get a lot of the technical bits. Someone has a sig line that's clearly supposed to be so mind-blowingly stupid that it gives everyone a giggle, but I don't think most people would even know it was wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 22, 2010 3:30:46 GMT -4
Another example of how a HB will make up his own physics to prop up the idea that Apollo was hoaxed. Frequently with the result that pulling off the hoax by means of the alternate "physics" would have been far more difficult than simply landing humans on the moon as originally claimed... Jarrah's ridiculously complex Apollo relay system is a perfect example. Mind you, the whole idea of which was merely to fool a few hams and foreign governments who had the temerity to listen in on the published S-band frequencies. Yet he has also claimed that said hams and foreign governments didn't have the ability to listen to these frequencies. If so, then why fake signals they can't hear?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 22, 2010 3:38:45 GMT -4
I do wonder if the HBs who make these ridiculous Rube Goldberg claims are even aware of how much harder it would be to do it the way they allege. I mean, what's their point, really? That NASA is considerably more technically sophisticated than they claim, but are too modest to admit it?
To answer my own question, I think it most likely that the HBers are simply incapable of backing down and admitting they were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 6, 2011 23:32:42 GMT -4
Oi, Jay, I saw you lurking there, how about stopping and saying hello.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jul 6, 2011 23:37:02 GMT -4
I hope things are going well for you these days, Jay.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 7, 2011 0:43:25 GMT -4
I hope things are going well for you these days, Jay. very ditto
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 7, 2011 10:05:01 GMT -4
Thanks, just dropping by to check up on things. Still very busy.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 7, 2011 11:21:59 GMT -4
Fight the good fight, wherever you may find it.
|
|