|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 5, 2006 21:59:20 GMT -4
If stargazer has to use his entire thumb to blot out the Moon, how come I can do it easily with the tip of my little finger? Hell if I know. But, although it's more like a half moon tonight, it was pretty close to overhead when I went out earlier. So I oriented myself so that the sunlit portion of the moon, from my perspective, was the "bottom," and the dark portion was the top. This isn't any kind of precise measurement, but the tip of my thumb was easily wide enough to block out an object with twice the diameter of the moon. And it's a bit thicker lower down. I probably would have estimated the moon at more than one-fourth the width of my thumb, but then again, I wasn't wearing a glove... N
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 5, 2006 22:01:33 GMT -4
You were the one who claimed you had a physics degree. I have $US 100 here that says you don't. If he does, I wonder if the regents would pay you $200 each if he agrees not to name their institution... N
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 5, 2006 23:01:06 GMT -4
Stargazer said:
How much more, Stargazer? How deep does this conspiracy reach?
I think those who've studied their history of the 20th century know that US industry played an important role in getting the Soviet economy going in the 1920s and 1930s. But how does this prove the Moon landings were faked?
My understanding is that in a range of industries, the Soviets were very good at reverse engineering products and profiting from that. After World War 2 they, like the Americans, got hold of German rocket technology and expertise.
You have still failed to explain why the Soviets would go along with an American plan to fake the Moon landings, when the stated purpose of the exercise was to show the superiority of American technology over Soviet technology. What did the Soviets gain from being the losers? We know that they tested spacecraft intended to land on the Moon, and they even sent a spacecraft around the Moon with a "crew" of animals, which were recovered intact.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 5, 2006 23:16:30 GMT -4
And in what fase was Earth? The phase of course changed as the mission progressed. At the time of the lunar EVA the Earth was about 65% illuminated.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2006 23:27:01 GMT -4
I think those who've studied their history of the 20th century know that US industry played an important role in getting the Soviet economy going in the 1920s and 1930s. But how does this prove the Moon landings were faked?
(Shakes head) The naivete of some people. Don't you get it? The industrial aid in the '20s and '30s was down payment on their cooperation in faking the Moon landings!
My understanding is that in a range of industries, the Soviets were very good at reverse engineering products and profiting from that.
As well as being kick-a** aerospace engineers, despite less sophisticated manufacturing, materials, and electronics. It's not just the U.S. aerospace community slurred by the Apollo hoax believers.
After World War 2 they, like the Americans, got hold of German rocket technology and expertise.
And other things. The Russians reverse-engineered a captured B-29 and rather quickly built their own.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 5, 2006 23:57:46 GMT -4
The Russians reverse-engineered a captured B-29 and rather quickly built their own. Yep... that was the Tupolev Tu-4.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2006 0:41:08 GMT -4
Dunno if the story is apocryphal, but legend has it that the Tu-4 was such a faithful copy that the rudder pedals were embossed "Boeing".
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 6, 2006 2:46:22 GMT -4
Stargazer said: How much more, Stargazer? How deep does this conspiracy reach? I think those who've studied their history of the 20th century know that US industry played an important role in getting the Soviet economy going in the 1920s and 1930s. But how does this prove the Moon landings were faked? My understanding is that in a range of industries, the Soviets were very good at reverse engineering products and profiting from that. After World War 2 they, like the Americans, got hold of German rocket technology and expertise. You have still failed to explain why the Soviets would go along with an American plan to fake the Moon landings, when the stated purpose of the exercise was to show the superiority of American technology over Soviet technology. What did the Soviets gain from being the losers? We know that they tested spacecraft intended to land on the Moon, and they even sent a spacecraft around the Moon with a "crew" of animals, which were recovered intact. I did not say the cooperation "proves the moon landing were faked". The fake is obvious for everyone who has eyes to see. We know that they tested spacecraft intended to land on the Moon, and they even sent a spacecraft around the Moon with a "crew" of animals, which were recovered intact.You know sh... How come the Americans also delivered weapon's incl. nuclear technology long after the end of WWII. The animal around the moon is a fairy-tale as most of the rest of space flight (of living beings).
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 6, 2006 3:23:58 GMT -4
The animal around the moon is a fairy-tale as most of the rest of space flight (of living beings).
Prove it.
By the way, why won't have the Soviets have demanded their own missions? If they knew the US was going to fake it, why didn't they? Or better, why didn't they demand as part of the cost to keep quiet, that the US had to fake them some photos and film? Why agree and then make yourselves look like a bunch of defeated fools who can't build a big rocket without it exploding?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Feb 6, 2006 3:45:43 GMT -4
I think Stargazer is indicating the "Missile Gap" was when we forgot to ship enough warheads to the Soviets to keep them in parity....
Perhaps his next claim will be that nukes are a hoax (yes....I've SEEN this one around the 'net!)
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Feb 6, 2006 3:57:50 GMT -4
I think it is a very amusing argument. I especially liked the bit about the USSR working with the US during the Cold War because "of course" the landings were fake.
That's again not exactly what I said. I said that on the highest levels of government there is cooperation. Here is your post.Quoting from that: "Well, since the Apollo moon landings were a fraud and the Russians did not shout out loud, the cold war cannot have been so serious, don't you think?"According to that statement, you don't think the cold war was serious because you believe the moon landings were fake. Lovely circular logic. So, which is the better - admitting that you didn't take physics or demonstrating that despite that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject?
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Feb 6, 2006 4:03:50 GMT -4
The animal around the moon is a fairy-tale as most of the rest of space flight (of living beings). That reminds me of the "ISS looks like a model" bit (as it happens, I've seen the ISS directly a number of times). Stargazer, just what do you think are real and what are fake? Interplanetary space probes? Weather sats? Comsats? ISS? The shuttle? GPS?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 6, 2006 5:36:09 GMT -4
so inserting the factor 3,67² we get a circle area that is about 13,5 times as big as the one of the appearing moon. Now, even if we consider that Armstrong's space suit gloves were large do you think he could have blotted the earth (appearing 13,5 times larger than the moon) out with his thumb? No way! This started off as yet another of stargazer's "No Way!" beliefs, but then a miracle happened - he actually did one of the experiments we've been asking him to do: he measured his thumb. He has consequently had to abandon one of his beliefs in the face of the evidence of his own experience. We're still waiting for him to do some experiments on star visibility, but it seems he is no longer a lost cause.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Feb 6, 2006 7:29:48 GMT -4
Stargazer said: The fake is obvious for everyone who has eyes to see. So, by your logic then, because I don't see that Apollo is a fake, I am: * blind? * stupid? * brainwashed? * all of the above? I don't have a degree in Physics, or even an A' level (usual highest level of high school qualification in the UK), but even the Physics and other science I have studied, when applied to Apollo, indicate that the landings happened exactly as advertised. Claiming that I (or anyone here) believe it because I am (we are) somehow personally defective is (at best) deeply insulting. stargazer ... as an interested lurker, who is satisfied that the scientific evidence proves that Apollo was genuine (and who has zero vested interest in it), you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than imply that I just cannot see the truth staring me in the face. Anyone can claim that Apollo could have been faked, but to make that stick you have to demonstrate that the method of fakery you propose was do-able AND provide evidence pointing to it having been done. Without those two things (which YOU have to demonstrate) your argument is nothing but hot air. All the evidence I have seen points to Apollo having landed on the moon ... over to you.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 6, 2006 7:38:41 GMT -4
Claiming that I (or anyone here) believe it because I am (we are) somehow personally defective is (at best) deeply insulting. If he doesn't do that, he doesn't get what he needs out of this site...
|
|