|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 6, 2012 16:20:42 GMT -4
I also think the OP is trying to point out that the astronauts would be required to document the positions of the stars relative to the moon horizon... No, sighting stars relative to the local lunar surface horizon doesn't give you useful data. What makes you think the astronauts would be able to see such a laser?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2012 13:12:30 GMT -4
I read that flares releasing lethal radiation doses are not uncommon. Where exactly did you read this? Citations and references, please. The problem with this argument is that it's impossible to hide data on solar weather. It is collected worldwide by many national observatories since the 1800s and made freely available to the public. Hence it's useless to try to catastrophize this risk; you can simply look up the data for the relevant period. In fact there were only two solar events during the entire Apollo operational period 1969-1972 that had biological significance, and neither of them occurred while an Apollo mission was in progress. This is not an abstract risk; it is quantifiable. And the quantities of record do not establish that a two-week mission every 3-6 months poses a significant risk. "Not uncommon" are weasel words. We have actual data. Weasel words. The only people I have seen argue this are conspiracy theorists who have no relevant education or training. They don't get to make up rules for real people to follow. Who exactly do you say is arguing this? Citations and references, please. But you don't have the proper education and training to judge reasonableness in this situation. Every single qualified expert on solar weather for the past 40 years agrees that the Apollo missions were real. It doesn't matter what you personally think is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2012 13:01:46 GMT -4
They never behave like guys that went to the moon. I always think it's cute when conspiracy theorists know so much about how people who go to the Moon ought to behave. It's even cuter when you finally get them to say what they think the correct behavior should be, and it's different for each conspiracy theorist.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2012 11:10:37 GMT -4
What is to say that the Apollo 8 and 10 images are not courtesy of unmanned probes. That seems quite possible to me. The fact that no such probes existed at the time, and no such probes could exist at the time. Why not claim that space angels took them? It's just as plausible, technologically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2012 11:06:24 GMT -4
The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. You claim Apollo 11 shows non-descript landscape that could be anywhere. Yet later missions show distinctive landscape. Why the improvement? If none of the Apollo missions were real, then how and why did they abandon their "this photo could be anywhere" approach and take a more identifiable route with the photography? And if, on the other hand, they acquired the ability to obtain more convincing lunar photography, why didn't they wait to hoax the Moon landings until they had that, so that all the photography could be? In your scenario, NASA has done the stupidest thing possible out of all the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 31, 2012 17:11:46 GMT -4
BTW, dimensionally all radiation exposures have units of energy per mass. It's more accurate to say that this is a measure of absorbed dose. But yes, energy deposited per unit mass. The difference being that exposure can be considered from the point of view of the source, whereupon it's measured in particles per unit time. Shielding is measured in mass per unit area, not per unit volume. This is one of those things that makes sense when you work with it, but isn't immediately obvious if you are just fumbling through it on intuition. Watching Jarrah stumble around brings to mind the saying, "That's not right. That's not even wrong." Sadly most conspiracy theorists want you to consider the problem from the perspective of their model. They don't ever stop to think that it's the model that's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 31, 2012 14:09:37 GMT -4
The LM was mounted to the SLA by the knees on the struts. The legs and feet dangled free in the flight configuration, but could be safely omitted in other configurations.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2012 14:01:36 GMT -4
At JREF I've adopted the courtroom language "Asked and answered," as an ongoing response to territory he's covered ad nauseam. That language alludes to an informal objection when a question and its answer have already appeared in the examination. When committed by the favorable counsel, it's often seen as a technique for moving the goalposts -- i.e., trying to get your own witness to rephrase an answer in such a way as to make cross-examination difficult, without overtly leading that witness. When committed by hostile counsel, the objection is that counsel is badgering the witness, trying to get him to contradict himself or to give the answer that the counsel expected so that he can pursue a predetermined line of question that got derailed. It's not a formal objection in all jurisdictions, but many judges allow "asked-and-answered" objections simply as a way to move things along and not cover the same territory over and over.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2012 13:00:27 GMT -4
I'll just refer to the answer I gave Patrick1000 when he made the same argument elsewhere. I'm sure forthethrillofital knows all about it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2012 12:52:24 GMT -4
The risk is that the hoax would be discovered. Yes, you argued this when you tried to say that's why Al Bean "intentionally" damaged the camera and why there are no tourist pictures of Neil Armstrong. All supposed evidence of trying to limit what's available so there's less to explain and less to tip off smart people. The problem is that what remains after all this careful alleged editing is still a mountain of evidence and is still picked through by conspiracy theorists to find "obvious inconsistencies and flaws." If NASA was so scared about people picking through their evidence, then why did they provide any evidence at all? And why are the people who find "errors" in the Apollo record inevitably the anonymous self-proclaimed "experts" who play all sorts of silly anonymity games? In the real world there is simply no controversy; the Apollo photos are well studied and accepted as authentic by all qualified experts.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 29, 2012 21:02:12 GMT -4
But there are so many problems with the moon pictures that I think inevitably they will be proven to be forgeries over time. That claim has been made for decades, and so far the only thing proven to be forged is the expertise and qualifications of all the self-proclaimed photographic "analysts" who stumble comically through their painfully obvious layman's misconceptions. Let me guess: you're going to tell us the Apollo 11 photographic record is suspicious because there isn't enough Armstrong in it.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 25, 2012 13:45:59 GMT -4
Regardless, people are going to accept anything that looks like a module because they don't think otherwise The problem is that some do think otherwise. One of the recurring arguments from conspiracy theorists is that the LM doesn't look like their idea of a spacecraft. So clearly, someone intending to perpetrate a hoax will want to make sure that those who do care and who do at least claim to think critically have something to appease them. For the rest, an "accurate" (i.e., what the lay public expects) isn't going to register any differently to their apathy.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 20:29:24 GMT -4
I am an Apollo conspiracy theorist, and have devoted most of my research on this subject to the social and cultural aspects of the moon landing rather than the scientific aspect. Regardless of how you categorize it, you're either dealing with facts or you are not. People often want to focus only on one aspect of the record in question because they don't have any answers for the rest of it. Only the so-called official story explains all the relevant facts. Saying that you limit the scope of your research is probably getting off on the wrong foot here. Along with many other flags from many other countries. We went in peace for all mankind. That includes Catholics. Not to me, but go ahead and make your case. Open-mindedness does not involve accepting speculation as equivalent to fact. If you'd like to present fact, that would be most useful. If you'd like to speculate, just label it as such.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 20:08:38 GMT -4
The OP seems to be very familiar with NASA's own material. More so than those posting in opposition. I find the arguments compelling. Rah! Rah! Rah! Go Sox! No. They regard conspiracy theorists as "kooks" (Jim Lovell to Bill Kaysing), "mental cases" (Apollo crew member in private conversation), and criminal assailants (Buzz Aldrin to Bart Sibrel, prosecutor concurring).
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 24, 2012 19:27:22 GMT -4
You seem fairly articulate. Perhaps they should make you the group spokesperson. It's a little early for you to be fixated on me. It's almost like you know me. It's hard to concoct a theory that NASA's data was falsified without referencing that data. Even a murder defense has to mention the corpse. "Referencing" the data is not the same as understanding it. Fattydash shows complete ineptitude with the information he's dealing with, and disdain for the expertise of those who correct him. Then you're not reading the same Fattydash posts as we are. I wonder why you would say that.
|
|