|
Post by gonzo on Aug 4, 2006 11:20:07 GMT -4
That's 7.8 million cubic meters of concrete... A typical concrete truck holds 10 cubic yards of concrete, so 7.8 million cubic meters is 1.02 million truckloads of concrete. If you ran the trucks 24-7 for a year, that would be over 116 truckloads per hour, or one truck every 31 seconds. I think someone would have noticed the activity. Absolutely. As I've posted elsewhere, there is simply no way of hiding this scale of construction. If this scale of engineering project is underway, you find that the supply for other projects is affected, and the prices go up. You need thousands of workers over decades, and that's just for the design and construction of the enclosure. And it's never been done to that size before. But the scale of the building requied displays another aspect of the intellectual suicide commited by many hoax proponents. Lets assume that a hoax is being proposed. The building required for housing a convincing Apollo11 set could be less than 100m in dia, which is 27 times larger than the biggest vacuum chamber built, but nothing like the scale of the problem in designing and constructing something 250 times bigger as lunatic is suggesting. Why, then, would any 'hoax planner' take the risk of trying to construct something of the scale we see in the later Apollo missions. Money doesn't suffice, since the majority of money has been spent well before the actual missions take place; better to have Apollo cancelled after Apollo 13 or 14? On the 500-1000m dome hypothesis, these are some of the problems: 1. There is ZERO evidence one was ever constructed. On something of this size and scale that is virtually impossible. 2. There is no other dome of this scale constructed, nothing even close.. That doesn't mean there never will be, but it shows that the scale of civil engineering requierd is difficult, complex and challenging. 3. NO vacuum chamber has been built to anything like this scale. The largest in the world is around 0.3% of the volume required. 4. If perpetrating a hoax (as noted above) it would be far easier to constrain the hoax to a smaller scale than to construct something like this. This, almost alone, disproves the hyopthesis. As I've said before, please provide ANY evidence of this hypothesis, and your detailed calculations of the design and operations required to achieve it. Otherwise we're simply dealing with fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jul 27, 2006 5:55:19 GMT -4
The reinforced concrete dome, is simply a hypothesis as a result of comments or hand waving comments like it is impossible to fake this, it's impossible to do that. Where is the answer from the architect? One of the foundations of your arguments is how hard it would have been to fake.
I'll be the architect you're referring to. I hadn't answered for a couple of reasons: you've failed to respond to previous posts with detailed answers (therefore what's the point responding if you don't ackowledge the efforts of those answering), and your tendency to provide fairy tale after fairy tale without ANY supporting evidence means we could be sitting here for months while you exercise your imagination in more random and extreme ways.
The building you suggest would be of the order of 500m - 2000m in diameter. The largest domed structure in the world that I'm aware of is in the order of 320m dia. Constructing a freestanding space, even utilising the monolithic dome method you suggest, is orders of magnitude more difficult and complex, even today. This is without also adding on the pressures on the fabric imposed by creating a vacuum inside. The technical complexity of this is way more difficult to achieve than constructing a system to travel to the moon and back. This is not idle handwaving, but accurately reflects the current 'state of the art'.
Any civil engineering project of the type you are describing would leave a massive footprint, not just in terms of the gargantuan structure produced (imagine something 5-10 times bigger than the millenium dome in London), but also in terms of the engineering teams producing it. If it had been technically feasible, it would have involved tens of thousands of engineers, designers, contractors, suppliers, contracts, drawings and a whole lot of money. How could this possibly have been hidden? In my experience any large scale civil engineering project like this would have such a major impact on the local infrastructure and economy where it was happening, it would be alive in local history and memory for generations afterwards. Constructing it in a remote area doesn't matter, it requires tens of thousands of people and would have a regional impact.
To prove your hyopthesis, and to let me comment on it in detail, please provide the following:
1. A demonstration of the civil engineering principles involved in overcoming the technical difficulties in producing, say, a 1000m dia concrete dome capable of standing up under its own weight, and withstanding the substantial loads imposed by creating a vacuum. (Be precise, use calculations - saying its made of concrete is NOT enough if your demonstrating something not done before). 2. Evidence that this was constructed. Any evidence. (not providing this simply makes your hypothesis a fairy story, and whist entertaining, that's hardly helpful in the debate you say you want).
That'll do to get started with.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jul 12, 2006 5:45:13 GMT -4
As far as I know, the British system, which ours is based on, works the same way. I do know that Scotland has the ability tio return an "Unproven" verdict that allows for a retrial though. Not wanting to nitpick, but given the tendency of the poster you're addresing to concentrate on the peripheral issues rather than the heart of the matter, can I correct this one. The Not Proven verdict here in Scotland doesn't actually allow a retrial (though that would be a reasonable conclusion to come to). It is in practical terms no different from the Not Guilty verdict. It does imply that some doubt remains as to the person's innocence, but that the proesecution have insufficiently demonstrated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's there for aesthetic purposes rather than for legal rigour, and often helps a 'hung' jury to move towards a verdict that might otherwise prove elusive.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jul 12, 2006 4:33:47 GMT -4
Jayutah, First you said the brain surgery analogy it wasn't yours now you say is but you are sorry. You are obviously very dishonest and try to cover your tracks by blaming other people (sounds familiar). Reductio and absurdum is that all you have and proves nothing. Other than you have to reduced yourself to looking absurd. Considering most people here see you as their hero. This brings the credibility of this entire forum in to question. You accuse me of things then fail to provide examples. All you do is accuse me of your own crimes. As long as you keep up this tactic I will keep singling you out, sorry!
I can see a pattern developing here. Disappointing but maybe not surprising...
Please spare me any more analogies. I think Americans are obsessed with them, I would put it down to their legal system it would seem to be based on the same line of reasoning.
I find this quite amusing when coupled with this....
if you can imagine a river barge loaded with lets say coal it is very heavy perhaps 50 tonnes, it would be possible for one of Jayutah is to push this barge using x amount of force buy hand, if Bob B were standing on the other side of the river (presume there is no current) would he be able to stop this barge using x amount of force? Would he need to use both legs? How much force would be required?
And,
Before you go on questioning me could all members of the forum that wish to stay involved in this debate please tell me;
You've come on here with question after question, but haven't answered all that were addressed to you. Why don't you make up your own mind whether answers/ information are convincing or not. The beauty of this forum (and I speak as a lurker) is the wealth of backup evidence given by many posters when answering questions. There's also the clarity of many posters posting which can be educational. To question their credentials given the tone of the post is bordering on the aggresive and arrogant. However....
What they do for a living? Company Director in an architects firm Who you work for? My own private practice To what level you are educated? Postrgraduate Masters. What is you specialized subject? Architecture What qualifications or experience do you have in that field? well, Masters degree and professional qualifications Why do you spend so much time on this subject? Interest in the subject. Can you provide me with any kind of proof that you are any more informed that Bill Kaysing on this subject? I think having done Physics at High School, and an open inquiring mind with an ability to read and add up is just about as much proof as anyone needs.
One of you had a very good suggestion that I ask one single question per post okay here it is.
Good idea, but how about closing out all the active points in this thread first? And ...
Essentially I agree but what about the inertia of the LM? I remember a very simple experiment to demonstrate this, if you can imagine a river barge loaded with lets say coal it is very heavy perhaps 50 tonnes, it would be possible for one of Jayutah is to push this barge using x amount of force buy hand, if Bob B were standing on the other side of the river (presume there is no current) would he be able to stop this barge using x amount of force? Would he need to use both legs? How much force would be required? If so where is this accounted for in your explanations so far?
.... this seems to be more than one question. What were you accusing Jayutah of at the start of this post?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jul 11, 2006 12:16:12 GMT -4
I I do still think it would be possible to have faked it, well certain parts that would have saved money and guaranteed success. If I can just deal with this claim from your post. This is one aspect that I always dispute with 'casual' Apollo conspiracy theorists, of whom there are many here in the UK. That the 'fake' moon landings were easier and guaranteed success. Consider that for a moment. Given your (albeit disputed) assertion that Soviet technology was superior to US, and the fact that the Soviets had an active lunar landing programme concurrent with the US, how on earth would ANYONE (manager, politician or engineer) imagine that a fake could 'guarantee success'. They would have to ensure that no-one ever made any lunar landing ever. And clearly that could not be guaranteed. Appealing to fantasty deals with the Soviets is not only ridiculous given the political environment at the time, it is lacking entirely in evidence and doesn't deal with the obvious point that you couldn't prevent someone else from making the journey during your lifetime. There are lots of disparate points around this thread which your kicking about. However I'd like to hear your acknowledgement of this one in particular; that it'd be far more risky, personally, politically and corporately to embark on a fake moon landing, with virtually 0% long term chance of success, than to actually carry out the missions? If you don't agree, can you please explain without recourse to fantasy?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jul 3, 2006 5:58:23 GMT -4
Lunatic,
You propose an entertaining scenario. Based on what though? If it is only your imagination, then it is simply a fantasy. Can you prove it? Specifically:
the CIA uncovered that the Soviets were faking certain parts of there space programme to cover up their huge rate of failure.
What evidence do you have of either the faking on that part of the USSR or of the CIA uncovering it?
Nixon was informed that it would not be possible to reach the moon until 2020.
What evidence do you have of this? Why Nixon; woudln't the 'fake' have to be in place long before 1968?
They had it all on paper but to put it in to practise would be too risky with the current level of technology.
What is the evidence for this when all the documentary evidence points to the contrary?
A decision was made by Nixon to fake it.
What is the evidence for this? Why Nixon (again)?
The Russian were told, we'll keep quite if you do too.
What is your evidence for this?
For the photographs and TV images they would used a small team on technical artists working along side scientific advisors from NASA.
What is your evidence for this? And how on earth would they do it???
The TV images of them with zero gravity in the capsule were filmed in a near earth orbit, filmed before the missions ever left.
What is your evidence for this?
They would send up an unmanned probe to orbit the moon for the purposes of transmitting the TV signals.
What is your evidence for this? And how would they overcome the clear technical difficulties (impossibilities?)
The astronaut would be ejected in their capsule from a military transport aircraft over the desired splash down point at the desired time.
What is your evidence for this?
They would collect moon rocks from Antarctica.
What is your evidence for this? And how would they overcome the clear technical difficulties (impossibilities?)
One of the missions would involve a one way unmanned Lunar Lander (with a mirror and a flag)
What is your evidence for this?
Other than the astronauts, only a very select few and key personnel were privy to the scam, I am suggesting less than 100 people.
What is your evidence for this? And the fantasy you have painted would clearly require a LOT more than 100 people.
Most investigation starts with evidence, and then proposes a scenario to best fit that. With respect, you seem to be suggesting a hypothetical, non-factual scenario with no evidence and then saying 'disprove it'. How does that work?
Why would this be any less possible than them actually going there?
Lack of any evidence. Overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 14, 2006 13:05:40 GMT -4
FABULOUS - thanks for that. They may be grainy, but the clear images (esp Ap 17) of the LM shadow are really obvious. So how were these images faked???
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 14, 2006 12:15:18 GMT -4
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Apollo_15_panaromic_camera_landing_site.jpgThe Apollo 15 landing site is the white patch bottom left. So answering my own question is that they could image disturbances but not objects. May still be of some scientific value to record changes to the sites at the next 'fly-by' opportunity, as well as killing off all but the crazier of the Conspiracy Theories. If there were images that showed the shadows of the larger objects, that would be quite something. This page www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html indicates that Dick Gordon on Apollo 12 saw the '50 metre' shadow of the LM to pinpoint the exact landing site, using the CM's sextant. Presumably recording images with the sextant wasn't possible?
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 14, 2006 10:42:44 GMT -4
The problem wasn't that it was the first landing, it was that no one actually knew exactly where they were so he was looking in the wrong place. I seemed to remember that they used a different technique in the subsequent landings to achieve a greater accuracy of finding the target landing site, presumably developed from experience with the first landing (was it some workaround about inputing navigation data after undocking?). I have tried to picture exactly what it was the CMP was looking for and whether that could actually be recorded, but the link from gwiz has helped. Maybe I've had in my mind an impractical 'resolution'. The story of Al Worden (I think it was) identifying features like cinder cones (as they weren't) for future missions gave me the impression of resolving failry small scale details.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 14, 2006 9:10:11 GMT -4
I see there is much discussion regarding the imaging (either from earth or from lunar orbit) the Apollo landing sites.
If I remember correctly one of the tasks of the Command Module Pilots on the various landing missions was to take observations of the lunar surface to identify the actual landing site attained by the LM. From memory they each managed to achieve this, except Collins on Apollo 11 (presumably due to the 'test' nature of the first landing and the more limited amount of time spent in orbit). They were also 'scouting' for landing sites for future missions.
The thought occurs that they may have recorded some of these images. I'm not sure what instrument they used for this activity, but presumably if they were scouting for landing sites they would have had the ability to record the images as well? Is anyone aware if such images were recorded of the landing sites?
Presumably, though, this hypothetical evidence would still be unconvincing to 'hoax believers', but I think it would be a vluable resource if it did exist.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 11, 2006 8:33:26 GMT -4
Yes, I was fairly 'relaxed' about the existence of easily dismissed hoax theories, until I found myself in the pub with some, relatively intelligent, work colleagues. I was a bit taken aback by the ferocity of their convinction that the Apollo programme was hoaxed. When I asked why, I got he usual 'temperature destroys film/ radiation kills people/ converging shadows/ Armstrong said "ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies" and never discusses the subject etc etc".
The scary thing from my point of view was their unwillingness, despite their professions requiring a high degree of technical competence, to engage in ANY technical discussion or research to deal with these issues. So despite them being relatively easily debunked, they wouldn't make the effort.
And this is what worried me. Their opinion, to paraphrase was that their belief was as valid as any other, and that's a common misconception these days; that simply to hold a belief makes it unquestionable. I pointed out that when a belief relates to testable facts, then one belief is clearly not necessarily as valid as another.
This is why I believe this subject to be more imprtant than the Apollo record's perceived validity. We have people in technical professions disbelieving that spaceflight is possible, and yet happily turn on their GPS system or satellite TV. They then celebrate and are encouraged in wilfull ignorance. That's a picture of an unhealthy society to my mind....
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Feb 11, 2006 8:15:00 GMT -4
Still here, still lurking...
Yes, I amongst other have learned a great deal from this thread. It's astonishing how much knowledge, courtesy , dilligence and patience have been shown by so many in responding to your posts. On the topic of the visibility of stars from various regions (eg from the sunlit surface of the moon, from a spacecraft, in earth orbit, from a spacecraft in cislunar space, from a light polluted city and from a clear location within the atmosphere at night), I had a pretty clear understanding of the factors at work, and the effects they would have on our ability to 'see' and record them.
However, the value of what many posters have been doing here has been to provide further quantitive information, and many elegant scenarios that have helped me in discussing this with my oldest son (he's 9 and very interested in space/ astronomy). He's managed to pick up many of the concepts, and those beautiful images of the full/ crescent moon posted by Bob. B were a lovely illustration of the 'processes' at work.
As I said before, I am keeping an open mind about your true intentions of posting in this web site. If you are a Devil's Advocate on a journey of education then well played (although your not really showing your debt of gratitude to the other posters). If your simply trolling then that's sad, but it takes all sorts I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jan 29, 2006 16:28:53 GMT -4
...and I was shocked.
The story may be a familiar one. I was 3 when Apollo 11 'landed 'on the moon, and the event is as vivid to me now as then. I watched every mission, and lapped up every detail. Not that I really understood it; for certain details to make sense (like the trajectory and the pattern the spacecraft flew in) took almost 10 years and a High School Physics education. Spaceflight, and specifically Apollo was inspirational. The things I didn't understand inspired a questioning response "so how does that work then?" A great way to develop an inquiring mind.
Years later and cynicism pervades. The people behind Apollo appear either incompetent or willfully negligent after Challenger. The US government demonstrates in many of it's operations that IT can't be trusted. And then you hear it for the first time "you realise that the moon landings were all hoaxed - just like that movie Capricorn One". And then came the proverbial mountain of evidence to prove it.
I'd always questioned why there were no stars in the photos. Here was an answer. Then there were the anomalies in the photos. Radiation levels in leaving low Earth orbit; the Russians knew the only possible shielding was 2m thick lead. The extreme environment was beyond the capabilities of the hardware of the time. etc etc
I watched a debate on TV and the fact that no-one was prepared to defend the case for the moon landings (except for one inept enthusiast) and the overwhelming evidence demonstrating it was hoaxed was damning. It was a lie and the biggest one of all time. And it had been proven so.
However, having developed that inquiring mind, armed with a high school physics education and a keen interest in photography, I was surprised to find how easy it was to debunk the hoax claims. Highly technical sounding claims could be addressed with fairly minimal research.
So why do these spurious claims and specious arguments get publicity and given credence when they can be so easily disproven? I worry that it's no just because we live in a cynical age; I worry that it's because we can no longer distinguish easily between fact and opinion. The age of the spin doctor and where 15 minutes of fame is more valued than a lifetime of hard work.
Normally I wouldn't see this as dangerous; just the usual crank theorists easily dismissed. But this IS dangerous given the age we are in, and the fact that merely repeating statements in a convincingly presented manner automatically gives them validity. It's bigger than just whether one programme was faked or not. This is about what we accept as fact and objective proof.
This is why this web sites and forums like this one, and those who contribute so coherently and knowledgeably are so important. As well as giving me the tools to a better understanding and better argument, it's helped revitalise that inquiring mind.
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jan 31, 2006 15:29:28 GMT -4
Really, stargazer, not only have we been thinking about it ourselves, we've been doing all your thinking for you. And what I think right now is that I'm not interested in another 50+ pages of you making stuff up, blustering, bluffing, backtracking, and generally acting like a non-stick pan to clues.[...] I have shown this thread to a couple of people who previously doubted the Apollo record (having heard some dubious TV show claims), and it has convinced them more than anything else that the hoax claims are clearly a fallacy. Do you understand why?
If this is true, Gonzo, then regardless of what my motivation may be in your speculation, you should actually be grateful to me since I'm promoting your and this website's cause. It is true and maybe a dispassionate read through the preceeeding pages would show you why. The thing I'm grateful for is the chance to show an argument with no evidence versus a balanced argument with a wealth of facts and evidence. Thats whats convincing. I'm starting to wonder if its really the devils advocate thing..
|
|
|
Post by gonzo on Jan 31, 2006 6:59:54 GMT -4
Stargazer,
Having read through the 50-odd (currently) pages of this thread, I have to say that I'm genuinely curious about your motivation for posting on here. I can only see it being for one of three broad purposes.
1) To engage in debate regarding serious (and maybe convincing?) allegations you have questioning the veracity of the Apollo record. 2) To play the devil's advocate in order to better understand the issues being raised by this web site. 3) As a wind up.
Only one would have you genuinely both believing and advancing your line of argument. However, as an observer, it's clear that if that is your purpose you are failing badly. If you have an argument it must be backed up with factual evidence. As many, many have pointed out you have presented precisely zero (note - not almost, but exactly). If the purpose was to advance that line of argument you have failed in catastrophic terms, and have only served to further the argument you claim to oppose. I have shown this thread to a couple of people who previously doubted the Apollo record (having heard some dubious TV show claims), and it has convinced them more than anything else that the hoax claims are clearly a fallacy. Do you understand why?
I am no Physics expert, but have a keen interest and only a high school qualification. But that's all you need to follow, understand and judge the arguments. An open mind helps too.
If it's number (2) then fair play, sir. Maybe taking a bit far recently, but the role has delivered on it's intention.
If it's number (3) then ....... why?
|
|