|
Post by nomuse on Oct 2, 2005 21:06:22 GMT -4
I would lobby, strongly, for retaining Margamatix on this board. He accomplishes at least the second mission; to let us get decent information to the lurkers. And as long as he is not banned, we can point to this forum as a place where rational and (relatively) cool-headed discussion can take place (notice I didn't say "debate" -- that requires a certain effort from all parties). I would enjoy if he didn't spam all threads, and if he made at least an attempt to keep the same arguments in the same places, but unless he starts into blatant insults and outright profanity I would not wish to see him banned. A pity he can not hear these words of mine!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 2, 2005 21:46:13 GMT -4
Second the motion. As annoying as it is for margamatix to avoid giving straight answers to direct questions, and to ignore careful, detailed responses to his claims, and to keep doing the silly arguments-by-ridicule with absolutely no expertise or detail to back them up, and, yes, for his double standard of taking offense at every opportunity rather than answering criticisms, while freely insinuating and accusing others of all sorts of malfeasance... this isn't BABB (or BAUTBB, now). People are allowed to do that, as long as they occasionally act like they're listening, and avoid profanity and high-volume dreck output al la xoox/unknown/etc.
Besides, he has offered details to back up two specific claims: the "Type 1 fulcrum bit" and the LM-landing-load bit. Both were immediately proven wrong, and he has gone back to "clearly jerked up on a wire!" and "Are you seriously suggesting..." handwaving, but his real response rate is nonzero.
Besides, as nomuse stated, people who actually want to learn something are benefiting from the exchange. I've learned plenty from these threads.
Keep margamatix.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 3, 2005 1:52:50 GMT -4
Um, LordOfTheRings,
You meaning the same Sam Colby who decided that because the LM leg with the ladder looked to be in about the same place in two photos, that the second photo had to have been taken from the same angle, but they'd changed the background, turned the top of the LM and cut a leg off, then rejoined it elsewhere? The same guy that claims the Rover's wheels are really inflatable tyres dispite the close high resolution shots that clearly show they are wire mesh? I mean, the guy doesn't have any serious idea of being able to even think, let alone actually do film or photo analysis. Jack White's attempts make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 3, 2005 2:11:25 GMT -4
Oh Jeez, don't tell him about Jack White! *sigh* Too late...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 3, 2005 2:56:57 GMT -4
I said they make more sense, I didn't say actually did make sense though.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Oct 3, 2005 3:16:53 GMT -4
With regards to alleged speed manipulation of the video check out my thread below
cheers Dwight
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 3, 2005 17:11:04 GMT -4
A few odds and ends for margamatix when he gets done driving or taking care of the kids.
Still waiting for him to acknowledge his mistake in the OP about the lunar rover being "inside" the LM. I mean, really, if he spent even a couple of minutes on the web looking for lunar rover information, he would see that it was carried folded up in an exterior compartment.
I do trust Bart Sibrel, in as far as it is possible to trust someone I have never met.
We've shown you in careful detail how he has misrepresented public-domain footage as "exclusive"; how he has stalked and harrassed astronauts; how he was fired for lying about his credentials; how he grossly misrepresented the "266 times bigger" claim; how ludricrously wrong his "5:1 time advantage" claim was; etc.
Why would you trust someone as demonstrably inept and dishonest as that?
I don't refuse to answer questions. In fact, I have just answered one on the behaviour of sand.
And that answer was disproven. But it was an answer, and you deserve credit for the answers you do give.
However, because it is not the answer that the questioner would like to see, then this will be categorised as me "failing to reply".
No, everyone knows you answered that question. There are many other questions to which you have persistently failed to reply, even though they've been out there for quite some time.
I showed you footage of Charlie Duke being jerked up on a wire. You say "Oh no, that isn't happening".
When I say "Yes it is, you can clearly see it is with your own two eyes", then that doesn't seem to constitute an answer either.
It's a poor answer. For one thing, "you can clearly see with your own two eyes" that no wire is visible.
For another, your supporting followup claim (credit due there!) about the "Type 1 fulcrum" was demonstrably wrong. For another, you said it was impossible to get one's hands and knees of the ground with one hand; but I was able to do it myself by leaning over and pushing. Finally, he is clearly using multiple points of contact and force to get himself up.
This was all explained to you in detail, but you have done little other than parrot "He's clearly being jerked up on a wire!" in reply. Again, it's an answer, but not a useful one. You won't win arguments here through repetition.
And of course, because I drive a truck, and am not home in the week most weeks, that seems to cause offence too.
Oh, please!
Well, if anyone would care to pay me a wage, I'll sit here and chew the fat with you all week. But until then, I'm often not around and you'll just have to accept that.
Various people have pointed out that it's not immediate replies we're looking for - just constructive ones that acknowledge what has been explained to you. You can wave the "I don't have time" flag all you want, but it doesn't go over very well when you have time to dredge up "Do you believe that?" clips but apparently not the time to acknowledge detailed answers to your claims.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Oct 4, 2005 23:32:59 GMT -4
Margamatix On about page 4 of this thread you posted a picture which showed a folded up lunar rover up against the side of the lunar modue descent stage. Your question suggested doubt that the lunar rover travelled to the Moon in this form. Perhaps you don't quite understand the process involved. If you go to www.apolloarchive.com, select the Images option at the left of the screen, and go to Apollo 15 part 1, you'll find a number of photos which show the rover in varying stages of attachment to the LM. Essentially, the process they came up with was that the end quarters of the rover were hinged so that they folded inwards. The wheels had separate engines, so there was no need for an axle. Each wheel was therefore also hinged so that it could fold inwards. The result was that the rover could be folded up into a box shape about 2 metres square and a metre deep. To deploy the rover, the top of the box rotated away from the LM; the end away from the LM folded out, revealling the rear of the rover; the rear wheels folded out to their normal position; the end of the rover still attached to the LM was released, being held up by a couple of tethers; that end of the rover folded out, revealling the front of the rover; the front wheels folded out to their normal position; the rover was detached altogether from the LM. At that point, the only thing sticking up from the rover was the control box which was located on the mid-line of the rover, in front of where the astronauts sat, and the seats were folded down. All the other equipment on the rover was held in other storage on the LM and had to be fitted by the astronauts. If you have a look at photos of the rover being installed on the LM, you'll see much of this process in reverse. There's no sleight of hand involved, merely some careful engineering.
|
|
|
Post by ajv on Oct 5, 2005 0:09:12 GMT -4
One of the newer pages on the ALSJ is the Virtual LRV page. It has a collection of images and animations of a computer modelled LRV. The Animation of Walking Hinge shows the deployment.
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 7, 2005 7:57:42 GMT -4
Hi guys – this is my first post so apologies if I’m either reiterating stuff or plainly talking rubbish! Couple of quick questions about all this (sorry to be dragging everyone back to the original point raised by margamatix!) In the film www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/realaudio/Ap16_50_foot_stall_out.rmIf you look in the top leftish corner of the film you can see the shadow of the LM. You can see the shadow of the lander’s feet with a thin line poking out the bottom – is that the probes described in Bob B.’s entry “the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface”? Secondly, in the bottom left of the film are the trails being created dust being blown about by the descent engine? If it is, does that then negate the argument of there being no “crater”? Incidentally for the record I used to believe that the hoax theories were plausible until I looked at all the available evidence and decided I’m now 99.9% sure there was a landing. I’m also an ex-British government employee and I know It’s completely and utterly impossible to keep anything secret for any length of time!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 7, 2005 8:45:33 GMT -4
Hello, daihoss. Welcome to the forum. If you look in the top leftish corner of the film you can see the shadow of the LM. You can see the shadow of the lander’s feet with a thin line poking out the bottom – is that the probes described in Bob B.’s entry “the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface”? I can't play the video on the computer I'm currently using, but I'm pretty sure you're probably seeing the shadow of the probes. The probes were on three of the four footpads. The front pad did not have a probe because they were afraid it may be bent upward during landing and cause a problem for the astronauts descending the ladder. Secondly, in the bottom left of the film are the trails being created dust being blown about by the descent engine? If it is, does that then negate the argument of there being no “crater”? The dusty layer of soil was only a couple inches deep. Much of this loose material was blown away, but beneath it was a hard surface. The hard surface was slightly eroded and discolored by the engine exhaust, but no large excavation of material occurred. The surface was certainly disturbed, and this is shown in several photographs, but there was no "crater".
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 7, 2005 8:57:33 GMT -4
Thanks Bob. Looking at the video again the shadow doesn't seem to come out of each if the feet, so if it was on only three of them then that makes sense.
I also didn't think there would be a crater - firstly if the probes cut off the engine, plus during my career I've seen Harriers landing on grass and their engine don't make huge craters in the mud (they do make dents though, and bigger holes when they take off, but that's because they use more thrust to take off than when landing)
I'm quite chuffed that the answer to both my questions so far appears to be "yes" - proof positive that looking at the evidence and making an informed decision is the best way to go
|
|
|
Post by DaiHoss on Oct 7, 2005 9:01:28 GMT -4
Just going back to my previous post and the comment about Harriers - if they went back to the moon (which "Dubya" said would happen by 2015 - only 10 years which is a bit similar to the time frame to get to the moon in the first place; ooops I'm opening another can of worms) and went to the original landing sites would there now be a larger hole or crater caused by the increased thrust required to take off from the surface?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 7, 2005 9:07:28 GMT -4
No, because the ascent stage of the LM used the descent stage (the part with the legs) as a launch platform.
BTW, it's really 2018 that's the target date. Right now I'm working on a conceptual design for an auxiliary power source for a lunar habitat, and that's the target date to put the first one on the surface...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 7, 2005 9:11:33 GMT -4
Where are my manners?
Welcome, daihoss!
|
|