|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 1, 2005 17:56:44 GMT -4
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY AND THEN YOU BEGIN TO SAY A LOT OF CRAPS TO MINIMIZE MY OPINIONS.
Please do not SHOUT.
Your opinions lack support. You have been asked to provide reasons why your opinion should be believed. You have given reasons. Without exception those reasons have been shown not to be valid or correct. Subsequently you have refused to acknowledge the explanation of your reasons, either to concede them or to rebut them. You have simply repeated your opinions and suggested that we are simpletons for not believing them.
Please address our explanations or resign. But do not keep repeating yourself with escalating frustration. We are experts in space and engineering. We are not won over by layman's handwaving.
FILM YOUR FLAG WITH A SONY CAMCORDER PLEASE.
Give a reason why this is necessary.
DEMONSTRATE YOU WENT TO THE MOON.
Deal first with the existing proofs, then you can demand more. It is a common argumentative tactic to defer the question to some unattainable point in order to perpetuate the debate. I will not thus be baited.
You have not yet offered a meaningful challenge to the existing evidence for authenticity, so there is no point in demanding additional proof.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 1, 2005 17:58:36 GMT -4
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY AND THEN YOU BEGIN TO SAY A LOT OF CRAPS TO MINIMIZE MY OPINIONS. If you can not talk without becoming so angry like this, then maybe you should not be in a forum for adults. But I do not minimize your opinions, when they are minimal, it is because you make them this way. FILM YOUR FLAG WITH A SONY CAMCORDER PLEASE. I do not have a flag or a sony camcorder. My neighbour has a flag, I can make a photograph if you like. DEMONSTRATE YOU WENT TO THE MOON. I did not go to the moon. I thought this is already understood by every one. Martin
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 1, 2005 18:10:46 GMT -4
Hey, the current topic is: "A question of credibility", not "Space flight dynamics".
You're the one who interrupted this thread to discuss flight dynamics. If you want to talk about flight dynamics, that's fine. I happen to know a lot about it. But it's quite rude to abruptly change the subject without closure on the flight dynamics issue.
It is true that the thread began as a discussion among the "regulars", but it has transformed by mutual consent into a debate on flight dynamics. It seems that you are unwilling to address the points I and others have brought up regarding your flight dynamics misconceptions and now you're trying to change subjects in order to distract from your resignation.
If you want meaningful debate, please acknowledge the points made by others, either to refute them or to concede them. Simply ignoring them suggests you are a crackpot and therefore not worth anyone's time for discussion.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 1, 2005 18:23:36 GMT -4
Hey, the current topic is: "A question of credibility", not "Space flight dynamics". You don't understand, sorry but it's the truth. I agree, YOUR credibility. And from what I've seen your claims are not the least bit credible.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 1, 2005 23:22:13 GMT -4
So many have returned to this forum. Now we need only a nazi, and every thing is as before the interruption of the web site...
Martin
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 1:59:39 GMT -4
"So many have returned to this forum. Now we need only a nazi, and every thing is as before the interruption of the web site... Martin" Thanks to my intelligent opinions.Do you think only you are intelligent? Do you think all people that think Americans never went to the moon are idiot? Well, then try to confute this obviousness: www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.htmlGo to the first footprint on the moon, the image where they say: "Image to left: The first footprints on the Moon will be there for a million years. There is no wind to blow them away. Credit: NASA" Don't you see anything strange, don't you see anything wrong in that image? ;D ;D ;D
Try to guess. I will tell you tonight.See you again soon
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 3:14:32 GMT -4
Thanks to my intelligent opinions. Yes, opinion that LLRV can not fly because it is ugly is very intelligent. Do you think only you are intelligent? Do you think all people that think Americans never went to the moon are idiot? No, I do not think you are idiot, you are only person in this forum who has called others idiot. I think you are intelligent person with intelligent opinons. Opinion that helicopter is stable because rotor is on top is very intelligent. Other people who are less intelligent think complicated mechanism is needed to change angle of blade as it is rotating. You can show to them your intelligence by flying helicopter without this mechanism. There is special award called Darwin award for people who can demonstrate intelligence in this way. Martin
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 2, 2005 10:19:04 GMT -4
"So many have returned to this forum. Now we need only a nazi, and every thing is as before the interruption of the web site... Martin" Thanks to my intelligent opinions.Do you think only you are intelligent? Do you think all people that think Americans never went to the moon are idiot? I don't think I'm the only intelligent person here; Jay, BobB, Martin, etc. have all demonstrated their intelligence quite well. You, on the other hand, haven't given us any demonstration of intelligence yet: 1. You are ignorant of the principles involved, and state your opinions as if they are fact. 2. You have not answered any of the objections, based on fact and sound engineering principles, to your assertions. 3. You have shown no willingness to learn from your mistakes. How are we to judge whether you are incapable of learning by due to your temperament, or by lack of ability? Well, then try to confute this obviousness: www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.htmlGo to the first footprint on the moon, the image where they say: "Image to left: The first footprints on the Moon will be there for a million years. There is no wind to blow them away. Credit: NASA" Don't you see anything strange, don't you see anything wrong in that image? ;D ;D ;D
Try to guess. I will tell you tonight.See you again soon Try responding to the multiple posts pointing out your errors first. See, you're not the first hoax believer who says a bunch of stuff which is refuted by people who actually know the subject, and simply tries to change the subject without answering these objections. So, no, unless you can actually answer the refutations of your current set of mistakes, I'm not interested in your new claim about this particular photograph. You have no credibility until you start backing up your first set of claims. You should also explain what training or work experience qualifies you to make the claims in the first place. Any intelligent layman*, of course, can educate himself about Apollo and make useful statements. But you don't appear to have any relevant understanding, as you are making the mistakes of a completely uneducated (in this area, anyway) layman. In fact, the lay people* on this board who have actually educated themselves on the relevant facts have seen this. *By "layman", "lay person", etc., I simply mean someone who's not an engineer in the aerospace-related disciplines. If we were talking about farming, brain surgery, dressmaking, or many other subjects, I'd be the layman.
|
|
|
Post by unknown on Jun 2, 2005 10:24:08 GMT -4
martin wrote: "No, I do not think you are idiot, you are only person in this forum who has called others idiot. I think you are intelligent person with intelligent opinons. Opinion that helicopter is stable because rotor is on top is very intelligent. Other people who are less intelligent think complicated mechanism is needed to change angle of blade as it is rotating. You can show to them your intelligence by flying helicopter without this mechanism. There is special award called Darwin award for people who can demonstrate intelligence in this way.
Martin"
It's not so complicated: helicopter "screws itself" in the air like a screw screws itself in the wood or metal. That complicated mechanism is not really complicated: it's as if helicopter changed the pitch of its threading to "penetrate" more or less quickly in the air. See you again soon
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 2, 2005 10:32:36 GMT -4
helicopter "screws itself" in the air like a screw screws itself in the wood or metal. A helicopter blade is a rotating wing. Its shape generates lift by creating a pressure differential - low above and high below. The blade does not screw itself into the air.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 2, 2005 11:06:41 GMT -4
It's not so complicated: helicopter "screws itself" in the air like a screw screws itself in the wood or metal.That complicated mechanism is not really complicated: it's as if helicopter changed the pitch of its threading to "penetrate" more or less quickly in the air.Try to show stability of helicopter without ability to change angle of blade as it rotates. As I said several times, there is special award called Darwin award for intelligent people like you who can make such demonstrations. www.darwinawards.com/Martin
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 11:18:55 GMT -4
Thanks to my intelligent opinions.
No. Intelligent opinions are those that can be supported by objective fact and sound reason that appeal even to the skeptic. Your opinions cannot be, or rather you have declined to supply appropriate fact and reason. Instead you simply state and restate your opinions without support as if that's all that's required in order to establish them as reasonable.
An intelligent opinion can be discussed and elaborated at length because its proponent has already expended considerable thought in its formulation. Your opinions don't seem to go any deeper than the books or web sites from which you lifted them. We all here have thought for many years about your conclusions. They are not original. In fact, it's clear we have given more thought to them than you. If you want to let others do your thinking for you, that's your business. I prefer to think for myself using my own qualifications and expertise, which I know to be considerably superior to your authors'.
Do you think only you are intelligent?
Of course not. But the question is not whether we know more about science and Apollo than everyone else. The question is whether we know more about them than you do. And clearly we do; and we can demonstrate that knowledge, whereas you cannot.
One does not have to be exclusively intelligent in order to sniff out well-known garbage.
You have, for example, committed numerous errors of simple fact: claiming the LM went backwards, claiming the LRV was supposed to fit inside it, etc. These are due simply to your not having done the appropriate research to know even what claims you're trying to refute. You have concluded that NASA's claims are false without even knowing what the claims are!
You have committed very egregious errors of scientific understanding, most notably trying to perpetuate wrong layman's notions of flight stability as if they were some "higher" degree of understanding. That may fool the typical reader of hoax books, but it does not fool people who are professionally qualified as scientists, technicians, and engineers. We know these things because we practice them for a living. Your authors do not.
Do you think all people that think Americans never went to the moon are idiot?
No, but they are all wrong. One does not have to be an idiot to be wrong.
True, many of them lack the specific scientific understanding needed to interpret evidence. Not knowing some particular thing doesn't make you an idiot. You clearly don't understand flight dynamics, but that doesn't mean you are an idiot. You may have considerable knowledge in other areas. But you should refrain from trying to pass off your knowledge of flight dynamics as that of an expert.
Many of them lack, as do you, sufficient familiarity with the Apollo record to be able to draw well-founded generalizations and characterizations, or to postulate well-founded conclusions about its authenticity. Again, lack of research is deplorable, but it doesn't make you an idiot.
Many of them are blinded by hatred of the United States or distrust of its government, leading them to ignore evidence that challenges their conclusions. Being misguided does not make you an idiot.
And a few are deliberately deceptive, hoping to cash in on the gullibility of others. These are the authors of the hoax theory books and videos. For the most part I think they know they're lying but simply choose not to lead an honest life. They may be despicable and criminal, but they are not idiots.
Whatever qualities these people have, I can tell you what qualities -- without exception -- they don't have. They don't have degrees or certifications in scientific and engineering fields, that would normally be required for an expert opinion on science and engineering. They don't demonstrate much of an ability to use logic and reason; most stoop to well-worn evasion and trickery in debate. And they don't seem to know much about the world around them.
You seem to be fishing for insults. If you wish to be called an idiot I'm sure someone somewhere will oblige you. But note carefully that no one here has, as yet, called you anything. On the other hand, more and more of your arguments consist of calling us simple and berating us for a supposed lack of understanding. That is particularly offensive when you have ignored repeated invitations to give your educational and occupational qualifications. Typically that means you don't have any that are relevant to this debate. That is fine, but you cannot argue from a supposed point of expertise without being willing to substantiate that expertise. Bluster is not a credential.
Don't you see anything strange, don't you see anything wrong in that image?
No I don't. And since you don't state any conclusion yourself, there is nothing for us to refute. Forcing other people to try to guess your conclusion is extremely poor practice.
And this is yet another attempt to change the subject. Are you finished discussing the flight dynamics of the LM and the LLTV? If not, please address the points I raised and stop ignoring them. If so, please acknowledge that your questions received an answer.
What makes you think we're interested in having a discussion with you about astronaut footprints if you'll just change that subject too when you realize you can't win that point either?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 2, 2005 11:25:19 GMT -4
helicopter "screws itself" in the air like a screw screws itself in the wood or metal. A helicopter blade is a rotating wing. Its shape generates lift by creating a pressure differential - low above and high below. The blade does not screw itself into the air. OFF-TOPIC Wasn't there a design by Leonardo Da Vinci for a screw-like helicopter? Also, I remember seeing footage of such a "flying" machine from the first half of the 20th century. Well, it did not actually fly, but at least they tried.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jun 2, 2005 11:41:08 GMT -4
OFF-TOPIC Wasn't there a design by Leonardo Da Vinci for a screw-like helicopter? Also, I remember seeing footage of such a "flying" machine from the first half of the 20th century. Well, it did not actually fly, but at least they tried. I'm sure there are others here far more qualified to discuss this than I, but based on the pictures I've seen, it does seem there were some early failed attempts to design a screw-like flying contraption. The notion that a helicopter blade or propeller 'screws' itself through the air (or through the water in the case of a boat propeller) is common layman misconception.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 2, 2005 12:10:41 GMT -4
helicopter "screws itself" in the air like a screw screws itself in the wood or metal.
Total, utter, complete hogwash. Wood is a solid; air is a fluid. A rotor creates a "disc" across which is established a pressure gradient. The disc cantilievers its lift to the rotor head, which acts as the locus of the lift force.
That complicated mechanism is not really complicated:
Yes, it is. I've worked on helicopter rotor heads. There is nothing simple about them, and if you study the history of the development of the helicopter you'll realize why such a complicated mechanism is needed.
it's as if helicopter changed the pitch of its threading to "penetrate" more or less quickly in the air.
No. The pitch changes uniformly to alter the fluid dynamics and increase or decrease the pressure gradient, but it is by no means physically equivalent to changing the thread pitch of a screw going into a solid. The pitch changes non-uniformly to create an anisometric distribution of pressure across the rotor disc which in turn changes the lift vector.
A wood screw cannot do that, nor can a wood screw adopt any rotational attitude in the wood after having been driven. Again you presume the wrong thing about coupling reference frames.
The cemeteries are full of helicopter pilots who thought their craft "hung" from the rotor and would swing naturally back to vertical after an accidental pitch or roll.
|
|