|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 10, 2006 6:20:14 GMT -4
Speaking as a long-time lurker on this thread I have to concur with Van Rijn. If stargazer can’t/won’t grasp a basic photographic principle like exposure and refuses to even do a simple experiment for himself then it shows his mindset is firmly entrenched in the realm of fantasy and belief.
It becomes almost a religious dogma for him. “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” becomes “don’t test the hoax theory” because belief is enough. This is taken to new levels of absurdity when stargazer proposes an experiment (knowing that it will never be done of course) involving vacuum cambers and fairy lights in order to prove something that can be performed in anyone’s backyard.
Stargazer has failed to grasp schoolboy science, simple logic, common sense and history which means that all rational avenues are closed to us. This exposes his mental state and causes it to become the real focus of this thread. This of course plays into stargazer’s hands since it leads us away from science and takes the pressure off him having to defend his irrational beliefs. He can then resort to claims that we are name calling or trying to discredit him rather than discredit his beliefs.
I strongly suggest that we don’t let his irrational and delusional tendencies become the object of attack. For those of you who have the will then keep challenging his mindset with science, you have done a great job so far.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 6, 2006 10:12:56 GMT -4
They mention a secret "Special Procedure" for the Apollo astronauts, according to which the astronauts were to ignore unusual sightings or encounters during the missions. This may be considered as good evidence in HB circles especially as it links to other CTs. Did they say where they got this secret information from and why they think it is credible? I think I know the answer but I just thought I'd ask.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 4, 2006 5:55:19 GMT -4
I’ve used a fairly orthodox set of languages. I started off with assembly languages, PDP-8, PDP-11, VAX-11, 8080. Does anybody remember the old Zilog development machines for the Z80? We used PASCAL with the Z80 since it interfaced easily with the assembler through PUSH and POPs. I then moved onto F77 and SPL which was Prime’s version of PL1. F77 was free on the Prime so we used it a lot. I’ve used many versions of BASIC, mostly VBA these days.
The oddest machines I have worked on have been a Perkin-Elmer and a Norsk Data. The Norsk Data was a 32 bit Norwegian mini and was the official European standard mini for a time back in the 80s. If you wanted extra memory on it I remember you had to pay Norsk Data many thousands of Krone and an engineer would come and remove a jumper (yumper?) from the circuit board thus enabling another 4MB or so which was already there.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 18, 2006 5:27:47 GMT -4
Stargazer may or may not be a mature adult we cannot say for sure. His attitude and behavior however are perfectly consistent with an arrogant, petulant teenager.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 17, 2006 14:44:12 GMT -4
"Bill Thompson" <thompson.w.m@sbcglobal.net> Subject:Apollo I was actually part of the team that created the faked moon landings and I am ready to talk about them. I have physical evidence to prove that they were faked." I can't wait for the day when Bill Thompson actually talks about it and actually displays the evidence. Stargazer, you are one sad stereotype of an HB if you actually believe claims like these. Spelling
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 31, 2006 6:56:48 GMT -4
I can see the problem Stargazer is having with the credibility of the LM. If you show me a picture of a pre WWII biplane and tell me it can go supersonic I would state with absolute certainty that it couldn’t.
1. I would say that the engine isn’t powerful enough (though I’m not an aero-engine expert) 2. I would say that it would fall apart at even a hundred mph over its max speed (though I’m not a structural engineer) 3. I would say that canvas and wood just aren’t good enough (though I’m not a materials scientist) 4. I would say it’s the wrong shape (though I’m not an aeronautical engineer)
So why can’t Stargazer apply the same commonsense reasoning to the LM and show that it was not fit for its purpose? Firstly because he has yet to show any sign of reasoned thinking and secondly because he’s failed to take his thinking into the environment for which the LM was designed.
He has believed what Colby and other HBs have told him without thinking it through for himself. Colby has taught Stargazer that if you put a pressure vessel into the vacuum of space it will explode. Stargazer believes the Luna surface to be, “searing radiation hell” though he can’t tell you why. His college or maybe other HBs have taught Stargazer not to read technical manuals (“If you don't like that continue studying thousands of pages of "technical specifications" (i.e. a load of bollocks) from NASA about the so-called spacecraft”) which is why when he looks at the LM all he sees is the very lightweight (and not structural) mylar thermal protection. Stargazer has failed to engage with the science and now he’s failing to engage with the engineering.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 30, 2006 16:58:16 GMT -4
Of course we wouldn't accept a statement from NASA claiming they'd faked the Moon landings. An HB would because their arguments are not evidence based. Statements are good enough for them.
If NASA did admit the Moon landings were faked they would have to document chapter and verse exactly how they did it. This would then have to be peer reviewed by the scientific community to test their claims. This is how science works.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 29, 2006 11:49:31 GMT -4
Stargazer, the reason you have singularly failed to win your HB argument is not because we all believe in the Moon landings or that we worship Jay or because we are mind slaves of the evil Gubmint. It’s because you are trying to argue against the laws of physics. To prove Apollo was faked you’d have to disprove scientific principals. When you came to this board you asked the following question: So my question to the Apollo moon landing believers is this: Why is it so important that those alleged moon landings did in fact take place? My answer is because if they were faked it would mean the basic laws of physics are invalid. That cameras work on an entirely different principle from what we currently understand. That radiation is not electromagnetic and particulate and cannot be measured by the instruments thus far used. And that it was possible to create here on Earth a giant evacuated soundstage that had one sixth gravity. It’s about the science and science is independent of politicians, governments and global conspiracy theories. And just so as you know, I am no Bush fan either nor do I trust politicians but it’s not they who dictate what scientific principal should or shouldn’t be (the Intelligent Designer lobby comes close though). But to be fair to the US I think they have the best democratically elected politicians money can buy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 28, 2006 10:23:06 GMT -4
Stargazer – When you started this thread you stated that: The simplest refutation was and remains the lack of any photographs of the stars taken on any of the mission, be it from the moon's surface or out of the command module In true HB style you refuse to accept the laws of physics, junior school science and common sense and have wandered off topic. You now talk about the NASAScam site as follows: I never said NASASCAM is an "authoritative" (that's your favorite word, isn't it?) hoax exposing site. I said it is one of the best, albeit there may be some errors on it, show me one website that contains no errors. Nevertheless it is very good because the guy, among other things, shows exactly how NASA faked the whole thing. Now read that closely and appreciate it and don't just nitpick on a few minor errors there are. At least NASASCAM did some work for you, in order that you may understand how you have been fooled. If you don't want to know that, I fear, nobody can help you. Colby’s pictures are indeed of the Impact Dynamics Research Facility (IDRF) (WARNING, 800KB pdf) located at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. Amongst other things it was used to conduct drop tests on Apollo hardware. Colby claims it was used to fake the Moon landings. Two thoughts spring to mind. Firstly, many HBs believe the landings were shot in a closed sound stage in Area 51 Nevada. Stargazer, you may wish to argue this one with the Area 51 believers (oh to be a fly on the wall). Secondly, Colby claims that the site is secret which must be why the IDRF is outside in plain sight in Virginia and painted a fetching two tone white and international orange. It would also take a huge amount of effort to airbrush that structure out of all the shots. Colby’s claim makes Area 51 look almost plausible. Added pdf size warning
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 28, 2006 6:10:57 GMT -4
It seems to me that if you wanted to put up a site to discredit HBs then you need look no further than Sam Colby's NASAScam. Being abusive never wins arguments and Colby's site is full of it. The factual and historic inaccuracies show either profound ignorance or a willful distortion of the truth. I will let other members of this Board pull it to pieces.
One point Colby made which could have been even more impressive to HBs was if he'd used the truth about NASA never using the metric system and only ever using Imperial. As we know NASA used the metric system on the Luna surface (because they were doing Science), they use nautical miles for tracking boost to Earth orbit and they used Imperial for everything else. Three different systems in one mission! Nah! nobody would ever believe that one.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 20, 2006 6:22:04 GMT -4
Actually it doesn't take much knowledge about space travel or astrophysics -- I have some though -- to soon figure out the Apollo moon landings were a fraud. The simplest refutation was and remains the lack of any photographs of the stars taken on any of the mission, be it from the moon's surface or out of the command module Stargazer Stargazer is using the classic HB tactic of not answering questions and going on to post more and more unsubstantiated claims. PeterB’s “380 kilograms of rock” is one question that he has not yet responded to but I would like him to address his claim about the photos. He believes that no stars in photos is the best evidence supporting the hoax theory. Many people in this thread have explained exposures to him which is a very basic photographic principle. More than that, they have told him how to check it for himself using a manual camera. If Stargazer's degree was in theoretical physics then he should understand the concept of exposure times and apertures. If his degree was in a more practical branch of physics then he should be able to do the experiment. So, c’mon Stargazer, think about taking pictures of very bright and very faint objects in the same shot, do the experiment and then come back and tell us, in scientific terms, why there should be stars in the Apollo pictures. I know this is the wrong thread but I’ll make a prediction here: “Stargazer will ignore the evidence, ignore the theory, ignore the experiment and probably ignore this post. If as I suspect Stargazer has no real understanding of physics then he will continue dismiss the laws of physics and substitute his own just like many HBs before him.”
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Mar 4, 2006 10:13:25 GMT -4
The problem is turbonium you are basing your argument on one quote. Yes this quote does exist on a NASA site, nobody doubts it. I did a quick search of www.nasa.gov and found dozens of quotes saying that solar flares are predictable. Here's two of them: From "The National Space Science and Technology Center …A partnership for research" (Warning PDF!) "The National Space Science and Technology Center’s Space Science Research Center conducts investigations in high energy astrophysics, space plasma physics, astrobiology and solar physics— research that requires specialized equipment, including the Solar Vector Magnetograph, located at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. By measuring the magnetic field on the Sun, this facility helps predict solar flares and other solar activity."From "CHAPTER THREE: SPACE TRANSPORTATION/HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT" (Warning PDF!) "Radiation Equipment. The harmful biological effects of radiation must be minimized through mission planning based on calculated predictions and monitoring of dosage exposures. Preflight requirements included a projection of mission radiation dosage, an assessment of the probability of solar flares during the mission, and a radiation exposure history of flight crew members."If the evidence exists (as you mention) that flares are not "completely unpredictable", then it is the authors who should not unequivocally state that they are. I have no problem accepting what the evidence points out Yes authors should check their facts but people who quote from them should also do a bit of checking around.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 21, 2006 8:01:43 GMT -4
As the subject heading says I'm a skeptic,I don't want to be but i am. One of the main reasons for my skepticism on the manned lunar landings is simply when they occurred,1969 through to the seventies.I remember those times although I was was only a little kid I remember the first moon landing,jumping up and down on the sofa excited and glued to the black and white grainy tv pictures.This is one of my problems,nothing worked back then. life was much harder than today... It's good to be a skeptic, I am one too. Believe no one, the truth is out there. While it's true that on Apollo, Kodak made the film, Black & Decker made the Luna Surface Drill and Fisher made the pens they were not off-the-shelf 60s consumer products. NASA didn't do that back then. They were all specially developed for the Apollo program. Fisher spent a six figure sum developing the space pen that would work in zero-g. The Russians on the other hand didn't bother and somehow worked out that a pencil would write in space!
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 21, 2006 5:36:12 GMT -4
First - solar flares were and still are completely unpredictable - there was and still is no way to look at the Sun through telescopes for any impending "signs of a flare coming". The only way a flare is detected is after it has occurred. Turbonium really should check his facts more carefully. Solar flares are not completely unpredictable, they are associated with Sun spot activity and can predicted with varying degrees of probability. Check out the following sites, spaceweather.com, NOAA and recent events. You'll find it all done with telescopes. Second - the radiation from a solar flare travels at the speed of light. The Apollo astronauts had absolutely no way of avoiding the radiation from a flare. No protection, and most certainly no chance of "outrunning" one! Turbonium is falling into the HBs trap of lumping all types of radiation together. This Board has covered radiation and solar flares in a previous thread ( Hello. Semi-former HB here.), he may wish to check it out. True, the elctromag radiation of the solar flare will travel at the speed of light but the particle radiation does not. Solar flares are also very directional which is why if one did go off during an Apollo mission (and none did) then it would be very unlikely to head in their direction. There was one notable massive solar flare during the Apollo era on August 2 1972 and lasted for 10 days. This occurred between A16's return and before A17's flight.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 3, 2006 7:32:23 GMT -4
There’s two types of contradiction. One where HB beliefs contradict each other (ie. Area 51 Vs NASA’s Impact Dynamics Research Facility) and the other where HB beliefs contradict reality, logic, physics etc. I would have thought that HBs could at least have rallied round the latter.
|
|