MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Oct 15, 2006 22:52:08 GMT -4
We get many reports from China that suggest it was totally impossible with the technology of 1969. Which item specifically would have nixed the whole Moon project? Tanks of compressed oxygen? Toggle switches? Slide rules? S-band antennas? Freeze-dried foods?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 16, 2006 10:18:18 GMT -4
Here it states that the dust was kicked up interfering with Armstrong's visibility. If that was indeed the case then surly there would have been some kind of crater or evidence of a rocket blast? Google up a film of a Harrier aircraft doing a vertical landing. It can kick up plenty of dust without digging a crater. The main differences will be the several times greater thrust of the Harrier and the fact that the dust billows instead of moving out in straight lines as it does in the LM landing films.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 16, 2006 10:54:35 GMT -4
Is there a reason we have to explain this stuff over and over again? Clavius has all of this information. heavenlybody, why don't you hop on over to www.clavius.org and let that answer your more general questions. If you have specific questions not covered by Clavius or are requesting more sources then by all means come back here, but this thread is turning into a serious broken record.
|
|
|
Post by hplasm on Oct 16, 2006 11:37:09 GMT -4
Is there a reason we have to explain this stuff over and over again? Clavius has all of this information. heavenlybody, why don't you hop on over to www.clavius.org and let that answer your more general questions. If you have specific questions not covered by Clavius or are requesting more sources then by all means come back here, but this thread is turning into a serious broken record. For some reason,the HB community seems scared of Clavius in general, and Jay Utah in particular. Guess they know when they are outclassed...
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Oct 19, 2006 0:30:07 GMT -4
Whist the LM was on the surface of the moon it would have been very hot on one side and very cold on the other, and there is no system present to compensate for this.When you are cooking a roast you heat up the inside of your oven to between 180°C and 230°, can you still touch the outside? How come? You just claimed, "There is no system present to compensate for this." Why can your oven be insulated from heat transfer, but the LM not? ...The LM was covered in about 12 layers of aluminized Mylar, each with a vacuum between it and the other sheets. Heat had to travel through each layer to get to the next. This is exactly how a Thermos Flask works. Do they keep your hot liquids hot and your cold liquids cold? Why then can't you apply the same principle to the LM? Excellent point PhantomWolf. A simple, practical example that anyone can understand. Likewise, Heavenlybody, can you put your hand on the outside of a working freezer and keep it there, just centimetres from a freezing interior that could injure your hand in a few minutes? You can? But you said "there is no system present to compensate for this."
|
|
|
Post by heavenlybody on Oct 19, 2006 2:30:08 GMT -4
Let get this burden of proof matter sorted out
I am not the one claiming to have been to the moon! How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me? This is quite straight forward, the fact that you have the audacity to refute this makes me wonder what are you ulterior motives and is anything else you say pre scripted propaganda. From the general attitude of the users is that you are bored with this subject claiming it is a closed book. Don't you think that is a narrow minded perspective? Might I remind you that if you are really bored of this thread there are plenty of other threads that you can pat yourselves or each others back in. Or as I suspect it is just another logical fallacy you have pulled from your combined arsenal. Bandwagoning is one word that comes to mind, if there is such a word and or simply trying to belittle the subject. Out classed, what by a sycophant, please.
If it is so much an indisputable fact why do you all have to waste so much time and effort trying to convince people?
How did they keep the LM cool once on the moon, in orbit they rotated slowly I think they called the spit roast effect? I have read your suggestions(oranges and apples) and do not think they are adequate for the purpose. Rotation was not possible once the eagle had landed, so how did they keep it cool?
BTW I am not sure that it was 90 percent of Americans than can not locate the USA on a map but it was claimed to be very high. You all being so educated and informed please inform me what do you think would be an accurate number of person in the USA A believe the Sun goes around the Earth? B Can not find the USA on a map?
I am really looking forward to hearing your answers on this question in particular.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 19, 2006 3:19:32 GMT -4
Exactly how do you think any three-axis stabilised satellite maintains thermal control? Google up a few pictures of a present-day communications satellite. They all have pretty similar surfaces to the LM, with lots of metallic foil, sometimes shiny, sometimes matt black. Passive thermal control is a well-established technology, it's just that the LM is the only example most people have ever bothered to examine.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 19, 2006 4:12:46 GMT -4
Let get this burden of proof matter sorted out I am not the one claiming to have been to the moon! How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me? In the United States, if the police stop your car they will ask to see your driver's license, vehicle registration and proof that you have insurance. Imagine that you hand over these documents and without looking at them he demands that you prove they are not fake. This is preposterous - the burden of proof is not on you to prove the legitimacy of your documents, it is upon him to prove that they are false. The proof of NASA's accomplishment is in the historical record which you have not bothered to examine. NASA made all of its preparations for the flights in the open, and freely shared the data and samples collected. Now you come along and without looking at them demand that NASA proves they are not fake. This is preposterous - the burden of proof is not on NASA to prove that the records, data & samples are real (although every geologist and engineer who have examined them for the past 35 has done so), it is upon you to prove that they are false. If it is so much an indisputable fact why do you all have to waste so much time and effort trying to convince people? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm offended by the whole persistent debate over an alleged "Moon Hoax"!
Tell the Greeks that the Acropolis is a fake. They built it in the early 19th century to con western European tourists (notice how no photographs of it exist before the 1840s). The Egyptians were cleaning-up with the pyramids they had built a few decades before, and the Greeks wanted some of that action.
Ha ha. Very funny.
Now keep after them about it. Tell them that they never had engineers good enough, never had artisans skilled enough to build any such architectural masterpieces. All they could do was pile up some marble to make it look like ruins. Tell them that this is easy to believe because their leaders are so corrupt and dishonest. Keep needling them about it. Speculate on how they faked the weathering, and how they buried manufactured pottery shards to fool archaeologists. No matter what evidence they produce, no matter what questions they answer, tell them that you are still skeptical. By inference, this should imply that they themselves are not intelligent enough to see through the ruse, or are just so full of their own pride that they are easily duped.
Do you see how completely, comprehensively insulting this is?
You say it's just speculation. Do you think it's fun to tear down the greatest achievement of human imagination, ingenuity and daring? Do you get your kicks by suggesting that heroes who put their lives on the line for their national honor are nothing more than life-long liars? Does it not bother you that you're saying the supreme effort of hundreds of thousands of people over more than a decade was nothing but a con?
Your idle speculation is not just robbing these people of their honor, their dignity and their pride in their accomplishment, you're robbing us all of our cultural heritage. America has done many great things in its 230 years, but it may never again reach that noble pinnacle of Apollo. We didn't go for conquest, or commercial gain. It wasn't just about beating the Russians (By the late 60s both sides had found that ballistic missile submarines were cheaper and more flexible than nukes in orbit or on the Moon). Our purpose was remarkably pure: We went to see if we could go.
Putting footprints on the Moon doesn't just say something about America; it speaks to all people. It redefines what is possible. We all want our children to succeed, to be something, to go further and accomplish more. We want the people we work with to be diligent and productive. We try to inspire and motivate them. We explain that study and hard work can pay-off. One photograph of Buzz Aldrin's footprint in the Sea of Tranquility says a lot about what human beings with drive and ingenuity and teamwork can do.
It proves it better than all the late-night, impassioned Internet BB posts ever written.
The historical record of Apollo is overwhelming - greater than anything you can glean from questions on a bulletin board. That America abandoned Apollo (and the spirit it engendered) is a travesty. To persistently maintain that it never happened in the first place is nothing short of despicable.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 19, 2006 4:20:03 GMT -4
I am not the one claiming to have been to the moon!
No, but you are the one claiming that it couldn’t be done. How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me?
Because you have made a separate claim. NASA claims to have been to the Moon and they have provided vast amounts of evidence for that. You claim their evidence is insufficient, then you need to show that is the case.
This is quite straight forward, the fact that you have the audacity to refute this makes me wonder what are you ulterior motives and is anything else you say pre scripted propaganda.
Oh, how predictable. Call on someone who doubts the lunar landings to substantiate their beliefs with evidence and they cry persecution and accuse us of being the stooges.
If it is so much an indisputable fact why do you all have to waste so much time and effort trying to convince people?
Because it only becomes ‘indisputable’ when you have enough understanding of the science involved. An awful lot of science is counterintuitive to the layman. Orbital mechanics is a classic example. Does it sound right to you that in order to catch up with something in orbit you have to actually decelerate?
Haven’t we heard this before from lunatic?
I have read your suggestions(oranges and apples) and do not think they are adequate for the purpose.
Then prove it. A vacuum flask works on the same principle of shiny reflective surfaces with vacuum between them. Why do you think that could not work on the LM? Why do you not think that the ability to make you oven or your freezer safe to touch from the outside is a good indication that thermal control is not that complicated? What about the SOHO satellite, which spends its whole time in full sunlight continually pointing its camera at the sun and its radio transmitter towards Earth? That’s been there for years and it hasn’t overheated yet.
Rotation was not possible once the eagle had landed, so how did they keep it cool?
Already explained. You find flaws with the explanations given then tell us exactly what they are. Not ‘I don’t think that’s right’, but exactly why it is not right.
Just another thought that occurs: the oxygen for the cabin was fed from a cryogenic tank. Would anyone happen to know if this would mean that the cabin is getting a constant supply of cool oxygen, or would the rate of oxygen release to the cabin be too slow to avoid being swamped by environmental factors?
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 19, 2006 4:23:25 GMT -4
heavenlybody,
You appear to jump to the conclusion that just because I tire of describing the same thing over and over that the entire community on this forum thinks the same way. I speak only for myself when I say that I don't see the point in describing multiple times the same things said more gracefully on Clavius.
The reason the burden of proof shifts to you is because you are making a new claim. On this forum, logic dictates that the people making the claims have the burden of proof. For the sake of debate, history has decided the Apollo landings to be real. There is a plethora of evidence and it has been accepted by a large scientific and government community. Apollo has provided its proof, and so when you make the claim that it was faked the burden of proof shifts to you. If you can't provide us with conclusive proof that the landings were faked then the landings are still considered real, not the other way around. If nothing else, the fact that the hoax believers are in the minority is the reason that the burden lies with you.
Here's an example: consider Galileo's attempt to prove that the earth rotated around the sun. A large majority of people thought differently, and the burden of proof was on him to prove them wrong. If he had gone by your logic, and told the majority that the burden of proof was on them, his theories would never have become accepted since nobody would have bothered to prove him right.
You can't come into this forum and expect us to do everything for you. If your goal is to decide based on evidence whether the moon landings were real, then we have much to discuss. But if your goal is to try and prove conclusively that the moon landings were hoaxed, it is up to you to prove it to us, not the other way around.
It sounds like you are already convinced that the moon landings were faked. If that is the case, no amount of proof we could provide would ever convince you otherwise. We've seen it time and time again. I would even go as far as to say that if we took you to the moon using the very same technology as Apollo and took you to one of the landing sites you would probably still be convinced it was all faked.
So now you aren't so sure about the statistic of Americans who can't read a map? Why don't you just let it go altogether instead of trying to get us to tell you how stupid we (the Americans among us) are? If you are going to try and insult our intelligence, you could at least do it yourself instead of asking us to do it for you.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 19, 2006 4:43:00 GMT -4
And besides, haven't you realized you are dealing with people that actually know what they are talking about? You are debating physics and engineering with certified phyisicists and engineers! They know the scientific properties of thermodynamics and heat conductivity and all that. These are real scientific properties that are in textbooks and are used in normative science all throughout the world. You think they are just making this stuff up? The reason ovens and cars and AC units and refrigeraters etc. work are because of these principles, and they apply to Apollo too. You think NASA would be stupid enough to ignore these scientific properties when they knew their missions would be scientifically scrutinized by multiple fields for years to come?
But wait. All the scientific experts that actually know what they are looking at when they see the LM etc. have been completely fooled. And it took the forward-thinking brilliance of heavenlybody to realize that because she doesn't understand how the LM maintained a moderate temperature on the moon the whole thing must have been faked.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Oct 19, 2006 4:53:42 GMT -4
It is a bit of a crass example, heavenlybody, but imagine yourself in a court of law as defendant.
The prosecutor stands up and makes a strong case for your guilt, introducing such things as security camera footage, fingerprints, DNA, etc.
If, in return, your lawyer stands up, states that they don't believe any of that evidence and that it could all have been faked, and sits down again, the chances are you are going down for a very long time.
In order for the evidence to be disregarded by the courtr, the prosecutor does not have to prove that the evidence has not been faked ... the defence has to prove that it has been.
In the case of Apollo, NASA have provided the evidence ... hundreds of KG of rocks of varying types, sizes and consistencies, photos and video of the astronauts on the moon, experimental packages put in place and used for many years afterwards, technical data on how the project was put together, how the equipment was built etc. etc. etc ... and now for someone to claim it was a hoax, it isn't good enough to stand up and say "but it could all have been fake".
The problem for those putting forward the hoax theories is that, whilst there is some vague possibility that it could have been faked (just like the security camera footage etc. in the court), without offering any evidence that it was, in fact, faked the theory can (and should) be simply disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 19, 2006 5:22:28 GMT -4
The problem for those putting forward the hoax theories is that, whilst there is some vague possibility that it could have been faked (just like the security camera footage etc. in the court), without offering any evidence that it was, in fact, faked the theory can (and should) be simply disregarded. I think even "vague possibility" is putting it a bit strong. The geologists are convinced the rocks are both genuine and unfakable, the aerospace engineers are convinced the technology was there for a manned mission, but not to collect the rocks robotically, the astronomers are convinced something or the right size was travelling to the moon and the tracking engineers, including the unofficial ones, Russians for example, are convinced something was transmitting real-time voice and video both from lunar orbit and the lunar surface. How is it even possible to fake any of this?
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on Oct 19, 2006 6:40:25 GMT -4
How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me? The ordinary claim is that the Apollo mission successfully landed a dozen men on the Moon who conducted experiments including sample acquisition and returned them safely to Earth. The extraordinary claim you're making is that such did not happen. Ball's in your court; what else you got?
|
|
politik
Venus
on a crusade against ignorance
Posts: 83
|
Post by politik on Oct 19, 2006 8:08:46 GMT -4
Let get this burden of proof matter sorted out I am not the one claiming to have been to the moon! How can the burden of proof possibly fall with me? Why did you come here? This forum is not a place for people to come and convince us that Apollo was a hoax. This forum exists for people to pose their questions and to have them answered regarding Apollo. If you are here for the former, you're in the wrong forum. Can you hear yourself? Scripted propaganda? Yeah, we are all a bunch of paid government employees hired to populate these forums to make sure that the truth behind Apollo never gets out. And they've got a gun pointed at my head to make sure I don't get any ideas about spilling the beans. Oh and there is a guy pointing a gun at his head too. Yeah, I'd say. That is because we are not blinded by ignorance and resentment. Clearly you have made up your mind and do not wish to discuss any real evidence. I won't speak for everyone here, but no, I don't think so. Considering that most people here know more about the history and science behind Apollo than you will ever hope to, we are very confident about our perspective. Yeah, thats what we do here. I hurt myself once when I tried to pat myself on the back, but then I found this place. What logical fallacy? Bandwagoning? you mean all of us believing in Apollo? Sure that's it. I found a group of people who all believe in Apollo, for no apparent reason, and decided to join them cause it looked like fun. Seems like you are familiar with Jay and his work. You're not a sock puppet are you? Or are you even more ignorant that I think you are? Ah but we are not trying to convince anyone. YOU came to US. You are trying to convince us that it was a hoax. We merely provide a service to the community, to answer questions from people who have questions. We are not here for your amusement. Please, the smallest amount of your own research would answer that question. Do us all a favor and and come back with a more intelligent question. How many times can you ask the same question in one post? Go look it up yourself. Or better yet, actually believe the other guys here when they tell you how it was done. Or even better again, use your brain and assume that if we can keep something extremely cold, or extremely hot in close proximity to something that isn't, then we can apply the same principals to the spacecraft? I mean, how hot does a welders hand get while holding a torch? How hot does the handle on a cooking pot get when you are cooking? And is relevant to Apollo how? Why not just tell me that your lawn mower broke down this morning and that proves Apollo was fake? Yeah, trolls often say that.
|
|