|
Post by ka9q on Jan 21, 2011 16:52:32 GMT -4
Fly them to the moon and stand them next to the descent stages, and they would not believe it. That's right. They'd probably claim that the experience was just an implanted memory, a la the movie "Total Recall". The claims about unmanned relay satellites faking the Apollo transmissions for the benefit of the Russians and a few radio hams are really quite funny. One guy seriously claimed that NASA sent a whole bunch of little Surveyors to the moon to fake the Apollo artifacts whose existence they can no longer deny, like laser ranging reflectors. What makes it especially funny is that the "scam" would have been much more difficult technically than actually sending humans to the moon for real.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 21, 2011 18:13:02 GMT -4
Fly them to the moon and stand them next to the descent stages, and they would not believe it. That's right. They'd probably claim that the experience was just an implanted memory, a la the movie "Total Recall". The claims about unmanned relay satellites faking the Apollo transmissions for the benefit of the Russians and a few radio hams are really quite funny. One guy seriously claimed that NASA sent a whole bunch of little Surveyors to the moon to fake the Apollo artifacts whose existence they can no longer deny, like laser ranging reflectors. What makes it especially funny is that the "scam" would have been much more difficult technically than actually sending humans to the moon for real. Quite. The retro-reflectors are a good example. Given the experience of the Soviet reflectors, one being lost and one not working properly, and the fact the Apollo reflectors work very well; I think it is good evidence that someone was there to set them up. It all seems too much of a coincidence otherwise. Granted, in theory robots could have set the Apollo retro-reflectors up, but I thought that the US was miles behind the USSR in terms of technology - according to the CTers they were. They seem to want to have it both ways. The US were technologically inferior to the USSR, but the US could send robots to the moon and set up their reflectors better than the USSR. In any case, the CTers robot theory is a bare assertion. There is no documented evidence that the US sent those missions. The burden of proof is with them to prove this. What is more, didn't Phil Webb dig out that one of the Apollo retro-reflectors was returning signals within hours of being set up. Again, all seems too much like a coincidence to me. Of course, the CTers don't actually appreciate the science of ranging. That's another issue.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 24, 2011 12:25:59 GMT -4
That's right -- most people who know anything about such things would agree that doing something manually, i.e., with people, is less technically challenging than doing the same thing automatically, i.e., entirely with machines.
Space exploration apparently stands this on its head. NASA (tried to) replace a set of working automatic launch vehicles with one (the Shuttle) that requires the presence of a human crew, and they called it progress. And most of NASA's detractors concede that they could soft-land robots on the moon by the mid-late 1960s -- but not a manually piloted vehicle. Strange, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 24, 2011 19:20:26 GMT -4
And most of NASA's detractors concede that they could soft-land robots on the moon by the mid-late 1960s -- but not a manually piloted vehicle. Strange, isn't it? I know this next line will get quoted out of context or misunderstood, but here goes. I think the most powerful argument that the HBers have is the radiation argument, the rest of their arguments are distractions. This is not because it is scientifically powerful though. There is no merit to their radiation argument. They play the radiation card more than any because it appeals to emotion. Radiation conjures up so many bad images, and people are duped by the scenarios presented by the HBers. I think out of all the arguments it is the one that should be taken on the hardest. To be quite frank, I'm tired of seeing the parallel shadow argument, the waving flag, the photographic anomalies, lunar rocks and blast craters. There are so many places on the Internet where these are fully explained. If the HBer cannot move past these easily debunked arguments, then I cannot help but feel they are stealing good oxygen (harsh I know). However, the radiation argument is not so tangible, and I can understand why people can believe it. Radiation is the debate I'd like to see out in the open. There is a certain YouTuber who claims that not a single astrophysicist agrees with NASA on radiation, and not a single person will challenge his findings. I have, and when I did I was called a pedophile. Well, I bow down to their intellectual argument in that case. <rant> Having read 'NASA Mooned America', I think Ralph covered radiation in about 5 pages. I wonder if any of the HBers have actually set foot in a University library and seen the papers that have been written on the subject. Yet they believe Ralph's few pages of hogwash? It just doesn't add up, pretty much like someone we all know </rant>
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 24, 2011 22:49:38 GMT -4
If the HBer cannot move past these easily debunked arguments, then I cannot help but feel they are stealing good oxygen (harsh I know). The moon is a harsh mistress.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 25, 2011 4:07:16 GMT -4
The moon is a harsh mistress. TANSTAAFL... Cz
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 25, 2011 8:28:51 GMT -4
I think the most powerful argument that the HBers have is the radiation argument, the rest of their arguments are distractions. This is not because it is scientifically powerful though. There is no merit to their radiation argument Yes, it's their core argument -- such as it is -- largely because of how "radiation" plays to peoples' fears and ignorance. But that's not the only reason. I can't think of another "barrier" that would let NASA (and the Russians) land robots on the moon -- something the CTs find increasingly hard to deny -- while thwarting their attempts to land humans. If you push them hard enough, most CTs will grudgingly concede that, yeah, artificial objects are on the moon. It's just too easy to go to any of several observatories around the world and show, as the Mythbusters did, that those laser reflectors are really up there. But that creates a big problem for the CT. If NASA could soft-land robotic spacecraft on the moon, why not humans? Just add a pressurized cabin, a life support system, and food, water and oxygen supplies. You'll need a bigger rocket, but many people saw it fly with their own eyes. What was left to keep NASA from flying men to the moon, especially since even most CTs admit that they regularly flew in low earth orbit? We know the answer is "nothing, of course" but that's unthinkable for the CT. So he needs something to let robots to fly to the moon but not humans. A deadly "radiation barrier" is a perfect solution to the problem! No longer must most CTers defend claims that even they realize are untenable -- that no artificial objects exist on the moon, or that no humans have ever flown in space. The evil specter of radiation is the perfect solution to his problem.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 25, 2011 10:53:41 GMT -4
The "impenetrable" radiation belt also plays well into their narrative because relatively little was understood about what was to become the Van Allen belts when Kennedy declared that we should go to the moon. The subsequent discovery of the belts "deadly environment", according to the narrative, then allows the rise of a conspiracy not to let the dream of the beloved assassinated president come to an end in a country that desperately needed hope. Or at least a troubled administration that was desperate to maintain itself.
The fact that this is usually attributed to Nixon overlooks the true sequence of events because A8 occurred in the waning days of the failed Johnson administration and Nixon was reelected in a landslide a month before the last Apollo mission, a program he had helped in ending. But Nixon is far better known for his more spectacular failure as president.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 25, 2011 11:11:58 GMT -4
The next time a HB uses the six feet of lead argument I'm going to tell them, "The CSM did have six feet of lead shielding."
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 25, 2011 11:22:50 GMT -4
The subsequent discovery of the belts "deadly environment" My question is, how do the HBs know that the radiation environment in space is deadly? To my knowledge there has never been a single report or document ever produced that says an Apollo-like mission would result in a dangerous level of radiation. Some HBs erroneously claim that NASA controls all the information and is hiding the truth. So if no one has seen the real data, how do the HBs know what it says? If the only entity with access to the information says it is safe, then how do the HBs know differently? The bottom line is THEY DON'T KNOW. They're just making it up out of thin air without a single shred of evidence. They might refer to anecdotal evidence or make non-valid comparisons, such as to discussions about long-duration space flight, but that only shows their ignorance of the topic. Any time an HB brings up the radiation issue, the discussion should end by simply asking "show me your evidence that the radiation environment is deadly."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 25, 2011 15:46:28 GMT -4
The subsequent discovery of the belts "deadly environment" My question is, how do the HBs know that radiation environment in space is deadly? To my knowledge there has never been a single report or document ever produced that says an Apollo-like mission would result in a dangerous level of radiation. Some HBs erroneously claim that NASA controls all the information and is hiding the truth. So if no one has seen the real data, how do the HBs know what it says? If the only entity with access to the information says it is safe, then how do the HBs know differently? The bottom line is THEY DON'T KNOW. They're just making it up out of thin air without a single shred of evidence. They might refer to anecdotal evidence or make non-valid comparisons, such as to discussions about long-duration space flight, but that only shows their ignorance of the topic. Any time an HB brings up the radiation issue, the discussion should end by simply asking "show me your evidence that the radiation environment is deadly." In my view, it is about developing a narrative that is easily comprehended and holds at least a potential plausibility for those that are uneducated on the subject. The radiation belt is one way to develop that narrative while putting the reality of the events in the story out of the knowledge base and living memory of most of the current audience.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 25, 2011 15:46:42 GMT -4
If the only entity with access to the information says it is safe, then how do the HBs know differently? The bottom line is THEY DON'T KNOW. They're just making it up out of thin air without a single shred of evidence. That's exactly right. But some (like straydog) cite a Scientific American article by Dr. James Van Allen published way back in 1959 (I think), shortly after he first discovered the belts that bear his name. They interpret his choice of wording as implying that the belts were completely impenetrable by humans - which Van Allen never said. They dismiss Van Allen's later statements directly refuting the CTs concern as having been made under duress by NASA; by then he'd become a "team player". It's a beautiful example of special pleading. Whatever statements support (or seems to support) your case are iron-clad, no matter how early they were made. Whatever statements directly refute your case were made under duress. No evidence is necessary for either position.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jan 25, 2011 16:28:10 GMT -4
If the only entity with access to the information says it is safe, then how do the HBs know differently? The bottom line is THEY DON'T KNOW. They're just making it up out of thin air without a single shred of evidence. That's exactly right. But some (like straydog) cite a Scientific American by Dr. James Van Allen published way back in 1959 (I think), shortly after he first discovered the belts that bear his name. They interpret his choice of wording as implying that the belts were completely impenetrable by humans - which Van Allen never said. Is this the "awash with deadly radiation" wording once again? I guess it would be correct to say that the radiation is deadly within a short time to a human in shirtsleeves or the like. But so is the deserts on earth. A couple of days unprotected and you are dead - killed by radiation of photons from the sun no matter the Belts. Am I correct?
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Jan 25, 2011 16:41:03 GMT -4
The radiation argument works because you do need genuine understanding of the phenomenon to see through it. The other arguments are just the diarrheatic produce of mental retardation or Sam Colby as it's otherwise known.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 25, 2011 18:07:13 GMT -4
If I ever get asked for a name for a heavy metal band, I'm going to have to go with Searing Radiation Hell.
|
|