|
Post by gonzo on Sept 5, 2009 5:42:18 GMT -4
Hi Guys I've become increasingly fascinated with the Apollo program in recent months and I've been reading this site for several weeks, just signed up today. The thing that fascinates me the most about the whole Apollo program, apart from the awesome technological accomplishments and the sheer excitement of it, are the hoaxers: I have never come across such a blatant disregard for logic, common sense or reason and I find this to be as interesting as the reality of Apollo. This is the thing that's fascinated me about this whole issue for years. I was always interested in Apollo/ the space programme, only to be concerned by the conspiracy theories that emerged 20ish years ago (well when I encountered them). It had that 'there's no smoke without fire' feeling. Then basic research shows that every conspiracy theory is wild nonsense. Every one. The frustration/ fascination for me is how people form opinions based on loud voices or "I have an opinion so it's got to be equally valid". I've sat in company with normally reasonable and intelligent people who are convinced the moon landings were faked. When you try and engage exactly why, they have half facts about radiation, shadows, computer less than contained in a washing machine, Richard Nixon etc and no argument will persuade them otherwise. And I'm talking here about reasonable, intelligent people. This is the scary point for me. The term 'cultural vandalism' has been used before to describe the effect of the misguided misanthropes who peddle this nonsense. But so many people want to believe it. I believe this speaks to something in the modern public consciousness, and that something isn't good. As an example I was entertained by these two stories. And then rather dismayed when I really thought of the implications (love the Onion one though). news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stmwww.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil?utm_source=a-section
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jan 9, 2007 7:30:49 GMT -4
Oh, right, I forgot about that. Sorry. I IP ban will be removed. Thank you. Sorry about the hassle. Although I don't post often I do read the forum on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jan 9, 2007 5:09:16 GMT -4
Lunarorbit,
It seems that in banning the IP address(es?) for Greigdempsey, it has also banned my home IP address. This is similar to what happened last September.
I'm currently logged on at my work IP address.
This is the only username I have, and no-one else has access to my home computers. As I pointed out before, my ISP (NTL in the west of Scotland) give out identical IP addresses, which means that banning those also bans me (and others in the same situation).
Would it be possible to release that IP address? I understand the difficulty, particularly if someone keeps on re-registering under a different username.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Sept 11, 2006 7:35:14 GMT -4
I'll look into it, you're probably using the same internet provider as Orumdude. Sorry about that... I only banned the IP address that he was using, not a range of them. Edit: I removed the IP ban so hopefully you will be able to login. The IP address he used was identical to yours. Are you using the internet from a cybercafe or library? Or do you maybe have a teenage son? Thanks LunarOrbit. I have a straightforward cable broadband connection with ntlworld in the house. I had noticed on other forums here in the UK that anyone from my area (ie west of scotland) posting with ntlworld as the ISP had identical public IP addresses. Thanks for hopefully sorting it out - I'll check when I get home. No teenage kids yet; they're all much younger....
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Sept 11, 2006 4:52:37 GMT -4
For some reason I can no longer log in at home, but get the message "sorry, you have been banned from this forum" without being able to log in. This is from 9th September. Is it IP addresses that are banned, so that Orumdude's banning has also impacted on my home IP?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Oct 13, 2006 6:57:24 GMT -4
What editing do you specifically think was done for deceptive purposes?
It is impossible to say; that's absolutely in the nature of editing. We don't see what's been taken out. We have to make a judgement based on what we know of the people involved.
For example there is a whole context in which these ambushes took place which BS isn't presenting. Clearly anything which doesn't 'fit' his argument will be edited, as is the case with ALL HBs, and BS has a specific history of.
That is, can you point out exactly where you believe he has (or may have) edited the footage?
No, and nor can you. Nor can you claim that there has been NO editing to suit BS's position.
And what do you think he achieved with such edits that would not be accomplished without any editing?
Presenting a fair and balanced picture. There is extensive evidence that BS edits his videos to do the exact opposite of presenting a fair and balanced picture. Therefore it is safe to assume that would be the purpose of any editing in this one, and indeed that such editing had in fact taken place.
Without being given the full picture we simply can't make a judgement on the people involved's behaviour. I have my own opinion, but in that I am necessarily simply speculating, as are those who say 'this doesn't make any sense; THIS is how they should have behaved'
Given a 'beauty parade' of who do you believe/ trust I certainly wouldn't be naive enough to trust anyone with the record of BS, never mind the characters/ records of the astronauts.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on May 30, 2006 11:36:22 GMT -4
Another thought. Presumably, KevB you don't doubt the existence of artificial satellites in geostationary orbit, since these form the basis of communications satellites/ TV/ weather satellites etc.
These orbit at (according to my 'back of envelope' calcs) ~2.9kms-1. Is it your contention that any object in this stable orbit which burns its engines to come back to earth will return to the 'original' geostationary altitude when it finishes burning due to the 'pirouette effect'? This seems to be the basis of your argument. If the answer is no, then why do you believe this applies at the altitude of the moon?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on May 30, 2006 9:26:37 GMT -4
I find it sad, and more than a bit disturbing, that the attitude of someone who has no grasp of celestial/ orbital mechanics, even in the simplest form, can take the attitude "This must be a fake because I don't understand it". The opportunity in that lack of understanding is in learning and achieving greater understanding; a beautiful process and one that leads to immense satisfaction.
How different would it be to get a "I don't understand how this effect relates to this event, can someone help me understand" question, and then move off on a journey of learning and discovery. The original poster has been given every opportunity to do that, but responds by simply restating the original, flawed premise. It's so disappointing, and frustrating in the waste of potential.
Kevb is suggesting, as I understand it, that an object that is maintained within an orbit round another cannot change that orbit due to the 'pirouette effect', which suggests that celestial mechanics is a balance between that 'force' and the 'force of gravity'. This reminds me of the (flawed) image of electrons orbitting the nucleus used to describe Bohr's atomic model. There is a danger, and Kevb should understand this, of extrapolating from a flawed analogy. Kevb's theory is testable and doesn't match the observed universe; that should be reason enough for HIM to question what he first postulated.
This is one of those questions that can be resolved through achieving a basic understanding explained simply by people with expertise in the field. Or by rigorous mathematical understanding of the full range of principles. Either way leads to greater understanding, and can be carried out by the sceptical, inquiring mind. A pity (for them) that this doesn't describe the typical HB's modus operandi.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on May 22, 2006 17:15:08 GMT -4
Launching probes into a higher orbit to Mars Jupiter this involves using the moon And other planets for sling shots to almost anywhere you want to go This is not an option when leaving the moon to get to earth So I ask again how was it done Eh? Three questions for you. 1. Do you know what escape velocity is? 2. Do you know what this value is for the Earth and the Sun? 3. Do you realise how understanding even this (primary school) basic concept might help you answer your own question?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on May 22, 2006 16:55:04 GMT -4
For those who say if you can get from the earth to the moon then it is the same to get From the moon to earth then you are forgetting one thing The moon orbits the earth the earth dose not orbit the moon The pirouette effect only works one way and that is from the moon to earth So my question to you is how did they return from the moon I like to talk to you in a simplest way possible to try and get my message across Unlike JAYUTAH posted previously he talks in riddles I am not impressed by that So come on in simple terms how was it done Regards kevin You were provided in the last post with sufficient information to answer your own question. However, here's a thought. The Earth orbits the sun. Your analogy holds true then for the Earth-Sun system does it? Do celestial mechanics prevent us from launching probes into a 'higher' orbit to Mars, Jupiter etc, or to lower orbits such as Venus, Mercury? If not, why not?
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 10:32:17 GMT -4
Post by gonzo on Apr 19, 2006 10:32:17 GMT -4
I don't doubt, having read Moon Man's posts and others of his ilk that a circular argument will be presented where the primary evidence of the type of radiation is the orbit height of the HST. Thus:
HST has to be outside earth's atmosphere for best imaging (therefore read 'as high as possible'). HST has to be serviceable by manned spaceflight. therefore (and I know non-sequitor) HST is at the highest point available to manned spaceflight therefore; this proves that no manned spaceflight over low earth orbit is possible due to the environment.
So no evidence required other than the observation of HST's orbit, nor no knowledge of the environment required to answer your questions STS60.
And incredibly all this in connection with a science instrument for which there is less evidence of its existence than Apollo....
|
|
|
Um...
Apr 19, 2006 9:15:36 GMT -4
Post by gonzo on Apr 19, 2006 9:15:36 GMT -4
Actually I'm amazed that no one has pointed out that the Hubble was designed to be servicable by the shuttle, thus it'd be rather silly to plavce it into an orbit the shuttle wasn't itself designed to reach. I actually thought this is the answer he was phishing for. "So you mean they didn't put it in higher orbit because manned spaceflight couldn't service it, but it could in low earth orbit? So manned spaceflight has never left low earth orbit - if it can't now it couldn't then"
You know the searing radiation hell of outer space and the insurmountable mountain of the Van Allen belts. Cue another 90 page troll hunt...
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on May 23, 2006 6:45:45 GMT -4
Apologies for the 'diversion' from some interesting and informative discussion regarding the use of biological samples to test the long term effects of microgravity and radiation, but...
..as an infrequent 'lurker' in this forum can I be permitted to ask a question?
The title of this thread is 'radiation for turbonium'; the purpose of it was to enable a clear argument and evidence to be presented by a poster who has maintained that Apollo was 'faked' due to the radiation conditions beyond Earth orbit rendering manned spaceflight there impossible. My question is this: Does this poster have any evidence to support this belief?
I'm genuinely interested; the thread has been active for 6 weeks.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Aug 10, 2006 8:18:55 GMT -4
You all have over inflated options of yourselves, none of you are experts in any field you simply work in some related fields and have a few qualifications, and that is only half a dozen of you at best!The statement “none of you are experts in any field” is incorrect. As is the one that follows it. My CVs grow because I am successful and am always willing to learn.You may be successful but you have demonstrated no willingness to learn on this thread. It is also ironic you say this after the very first statement in the post. I actually bought a mini golf course and bar here in Pattaya during the time I have been making these posts.Good for you. Is your best argument where would they build it?No. There is a question for you. You have proposed that this enormous construction took place. Please provide evidence it did. This is the third time I’ve asked this, you continue to ignore this question (plus all the others). How about area 51 then cover it with a sand dune? Or under a reservoir or a shallow body of water? Or even inside one of those nuclear blast caverns and then collapse the whole cavern in on itself before the truth got out?Fine. You propose these. Please provide evidence. Any evidence. Most of you are completely lost on this subject go back to the drawing board and think it over again. I have conducted an experiment that proves a 1:25 thickness to diameter is good enough to hold 5 bar. What more proof do you need?There is no evidence that the people you are debating this issue with are in any way ‘lost’ on this. There is a high level of evidence to suggest that you are. Your experiment certainly does not show what you suggest. I have given a brief description of why elsewhere; you have failed to address a single one of those points. I have asked for evidence, you have provided none. We are a LONG way from even discussing proof. Or how would the get that much concrete? Are you aware that after water concrete is the second biggest commodity used by man? Have you ever seen them dredging sand of the sea bed they can pump a phenomenal amount, did any of you see the building of the sand islands in Dubai? Those dredgers pumped and spayed so much sand, they could have built a 200m dome in less than a month.I am perfectly aware of how to procure concrete, transport it in huge quantities and the logistical and technical implications of that. I deal with those issues nearly every day of my professional life (as well as many others). Any construction of this scale leaves an ENORMOUS footprint. Do you know the largest dome construction ever built? Or the largest concrete dome? Do you understand the implications of increasing the scale to the size required by your proposal? Do you understand the limiting factors on construction materials? Do you understand the non-trivial nature of this scale of civil engineering? Do you have any evidence? There is no limit to how big the ship is only the facility that builds it.But do you understand the intrinsic limiting factors on construction materials? There is no squaring it up, the atmosphere exerts one bar at sea level that is it.You constructed a 750mm model of ‘something’, and then arbitrarily claimed that this can be scale up in all three dimensions by 1000. Do you understand that the performance materials, masses etc scale by a factor of a thousand million? It would most certainly work if the dome was 40 m dome with walls 10 m thickness and a 20m internal diameter scale that up to any size and it should work. I think a bit too much but it should shut a few of you up for at least 10 seconds.‘scale that up to any size’ does NOT work. I have explained elsewhere why, as have others. You have not responded to these. You have still provided NO EVIDENCE. If all you want to do is shut people up for 10 seconds, why claim to want to debate? You were trying to bamboozle me this, just makes me more suspicious.No, you asked a question (well several) which I and others were good enough to answer. This was a test to see if you could operated out side the parameters of your particular fields, and the answer is clearly no you can not. You will all just disagree with anything I say even if it is right, you will go as far as offering useless equations and so called expert options that are just speculation..... LOL!
What a joke.This is so obviously wrong that I don’t really know where to begin to argue. Posters on here have been generous enough to answer your questions and you insult them and call it a 'joke'. And yet you don't have the common courtesy to answer the questions posed to you or to respond for requests for evidence resulting from your claims. You will hate me even more now than ever.
I certainly don’t hate you, I do find it surprising that you start off seemingly with an enquiring and inquisitive mind, but revert very quickly to insults and closed minded argument. I spoke to a ex soviet air force pilot a few days ago, he actually flew MIG25 from 1977-1984. He said that the aircraft was more than capable of flying at mach 3.7!!!!!! but it would run out of fuel before you could land it and the engines would be useless.
etc etc
The US tracked an Egyptian MIG 25 over Israel in 1973 at mach 3.2, this is common knowledge. The version I am referring to is from the 80's What do you reckon 10 -15 years to get another .2 of a mach?I am not an expert in this field. I don’t see where you’re going with this. If I said I’d met an SR-71 pilot who said that aircraft could do Mach 4, then at least there would be some evidence for that. Yet again someone claims to have ‘hidden knowledge’ from a single unverifiable source that contradicts every other informed source. www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0023.shtml www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0030b.shtml
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Aug 4, 2006 12:00:19 GMT -4
I I actually conducted a small experiment with a spherical buoy 750mm in diameter. I cut into two, sprayed on a layer of concrete to the inside, fixed some wire mesh, re-sprayed some concrete, added some more mesh, I made four layers untill it was 30mm thick, removed the form, then sealed it up with fibre glass, droped it down 10m in to the sea, it survived, I then took it down to 20m it held up just fine, in fact we took it down to 40m and it still doing just fine. Please explain why I can not scale this up? I have prove it can handle 5 bar at a 750mm diameter to 30mm thickness. It's difficult to know where to start with this. You're asking why you can'y simply scale up your 1:1000 scale model? Well materials behave differently when they are a factor of a thousand million(1000 x 1000 x 1000) different. The material you used would have little difficulty self supporting at a scale of 0.75m, but would have significant difficulty over 750m. If you can't see the difference then maybe another 'model' would demonstrate. I've just sat and built a 1:100 scale model of a 10m x 15m x 10m high building. I used paper, cut and folded into a cuboid. I then 'loaded up' the top flat surface with 300g of uniformly distributed dead weight. This simulates the wieght, at 1:100 scale, of around 2500 - 3000 people. Would I be safe, then, to use a similar method to construct a full scale building of this size using 30mm thick paper ply, and would it hold the number of people I modelled? If you can answer this, even intuitively, then you can understand why your 1:1000 scale model doesn't simply scale up.
|
|