|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 10, 2005 2:30:13 GMT -4
It doesn't really sound like "I have been trying to get hold of a copy of the blueprints of the Apollo spacecraft" was a truthful statement.
I hesitate to call it an outright lie, but perhaps Margamatix could allay our suspicions by telling us the exact steps he undertook.
Or was it all just typical HB hyperbole?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 9, 2005 10:29:40 GMT -4
Oops! Thought I'd be smart and simply make an addition to the last post, but forgot that members wouldn't be alerted to an addition to the thread. Hence this shameful bump.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 8, 2005 10:20:01 GMT -4
Excellent news! West Crater is indeed visible in the high-res copy of AS11-37-5447. But I'm not saying where. Hint: Compare the landmarks in the fourth black and white photo. Edited to add: It's quite exciting to be able to see West Crater in a great photo that is, as Count Zero put it, awesomely beautiful. Until yesterday I had only examined a medium-res copy of the photo and not found West Crater, but now I can recognise it there as a light-coloured blob made of rectangular shapes. It's quite crisp in the high-res version. And this brings us back to a basic thing about photo-analysis that Margamatix and Turbonium don't seem to know: Don't use fuzzy little pictures -- they are useless. Use the biggest and clearest with the fullest possible tonal range that you can find. And please, don't try to make something out of reflections in foil. As an ex-professional photographer who's job often involved analysing photos (though not the really expert stuff, photogrammetry), I'm often appalled at amateurish attempts at it and the likes of Jack White. It makes me feel like I would if I got a carpenter to fix my teeth.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 8, 2005 6:22:09 GMT -4
Some people really are impractical dreamers when they say this should be possible. They just don't think about it, or find out what telescopes are capable of, or do the mathematics, or look at photographs to get any real idea of what they're talking about. Do they even think about what is required to see a car on Earth from 100 km away, especially when they are not stationary but moving quickly? They're basically clueless, yet claim, as the late Bill Kaysing did, that the biggest telescopes on Earth should be able to do it. Here's an exercise anyone can do with the Apollo 11 landing site. 1.) Go to this site: www.boulder.swri.edu/~durda/Apollo/landing_sites.htmland save the eight photos of the Apollo 11 landing site to your hard drive. 2.) Download and save a high-res copy this picture: AS11-37-5447 You can get one here (Apollo Image Gallery, 11-pg2, 1323kb): www.apolloarchive.comThe third and fourth parts actually require the use of one's brains, which probably means that some hoax-believers won't be able to do it. 3.) Analyse the photographs. Study them carefully and get to know the scale in each. In all eight that zoom in on the landing site, identify the main features that you can see in the next one, and even the previous one. Don't allow them to be a just a jumble of craters. Look. See. Think. Get hold of a lunar atlas or crawl the web and identify Moltke crater, the one with the bright halo and the shallow rilles nearby. Note that West Crater, the rocky one which Neil Armstrong manually overflew, doesn't even become visible until the fourth photo and even then it's only a tiny dot among many much bigger craters. Pick it out -- identify it. Want to know which one is West Crater? It's the biggest one in photo No. 6, and the landing site is on the left of the box in that photo, just beyond East Crater, another that Neil overflew then later ran back and photographed. His track is marked on the eighth photograph. 4.) Okay, having done that, now identify the whereabouts of the landing site in AS-37-5447, using the set of black-and-white photos. It is just above the Command Module. Being observant, you will have noticed that this photo is rotated 90 degrees from the set of photos. Note Moltke on the left. It is 6.5 km wide and 1310 metres deep. There could be ten lunar modules lined up side-by-side inside it and you wouldn't even see them with the naked eye from that height. Can you see West Crater there? I doubt it. But that's taken from only about 50 km above the moon, isn't it? Yes. And even with an optical aid, Mike Collins couldn't see the LM down there, although he knew roughly where to look. But keep using that brain and think even more, this time about camera shake. Even if from the height of AS-37-5447, with powerful optics, you could see the LM, could you get a nice, clear photograph of it? Doesn't higher magnification also magnify camera shake or movement? Yes, indeed it does. And you wouldn't be hovering there, would you? You'd be orbiting the moon, and isn't it just a possibility that your super-duper magnification would also magnify the speed at which the lunar surface moves underneath you? Yes it is. Is it not possible that the beautifully magnified lunar module might just turn out to be a blurred streak? Think about it. Oh, and by the way, it's a just wee tad harder to photograph the landing sites from Earth than it is from a mere 50km above them. But if you've carefully and pedantically followed the instructions above and done a bit of intelligent thinking, you may have actually had some sort of a "eureka" experience and may be able to appreciate that yourself. <Fixed typos>
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 7, 2005 1:56:17 GMT -4
"Moon Lander - how we Devloped the Apollo Lunar module" by Thomas J Kelly- it tells of the efforts Kelly and the teams at grumman made to devlope the Lander you appear to have so much scorn for, people litterateraly worked themselves to death to build a unique machine that worked better than anyone could have believed ... This is getting way off the "Coke bottle" (new thread for new topic, please...) but at 0:16:50 in the NASA movie, "Apollo 13: Houston, We’ve Got a Problem," Flight Director Gene Kranz can be seen saying, "I think as we have found before, every time we've put the LM to a test it's always done much more than it was guaranteed to do."
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 1, 2005 6:17:08 GMT -4
Sigh, it has come up again, this time at The Black Vault -- and one poster knows far more about the moon landings than Clavius. www.bvalphaserver.com/postx36401-0-0.htmlTurbonium -- I see you posting there. I don't have time to read all the pages and reply, so please feel free to refer the readers to my post here msgboard.snopes.com/message/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/43/t/000892.htmlwhere I relate how I got to the bottom of the "Coke bottle" mystery. One poster says that a particular video looks nothing like what was described in "Dark Moon." Well, I read the Una Ronald story first and later noticed the flare concerned, and it does indeed match Una's description if we allow for the memories of a once-only viewing over 30 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 2, 2005 9:54:16 GMT -4
Well, I'm not a big poster here, but seeing that you're asking...
I too have no difficulty with honesty, and have often been told off for being too honest, but not for lying. To me, lying even includes not telling all the truth.
My main motivation for being here is the truth about Apollo. Secondly, I'm here to enjoy myself and to learn about Apollo , and I certainly do that.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 1, 2005 4:56:35 GMT -4
Come off it! It is perfectly clear that it's the laundry of an aspiring politician thrown on the rails at a horse-racing track. And the miffed English Sheepdog at bottom right with the top of its head and ears partly covered by the rose-type thingy that politicians wear is clearly visible. So is the thingy. Look at the green of the race-track in the background, visible through the brown and white rails! Its obvious that the politician wears a 1970s-style blue polyester wash-and wear suit.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 1, 2005 3:31:46 GMT -4
Regarding Margamatix's avatar: I... concluded that it's the laundry of an aspiring politician thrown on the rails at a horse-racing track. And there's an annoyed English Sheepdog at bottom right with the top of its head and ears partly covered by the rose-type thingy that politicians wear. Furthermore, because it is perfectly clear that the picture is that of a politician's laundry and therefore anyone who does not agree with me must be mentally deranged, I do not have to prove anything to anyone and should someone come up with evidence to the contrary I shall simply repeat and repeat and repeat - as if I'm a drunk - that it is perfectly clear that the picture is that of a politician's laundry. So there.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2005 23:48:29 GMT -4
Incidentally, Margamatix, what's your avatar a picture of? I just can't work out what it is and I'm getting more curious by the minute. :-) Cheers I wondered the same thing, and concluded that it's the laundry of an aspiring politician thrown on the rails at a horse-racing track. And there's an annoyed English Sheepdog at bottom right with the top of its head and ears partly covered by the rose-type thingy that politicians wear.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 31, 2005 22:13:02 GMT -4
If I'd known I would hve gone and seen Buzz last year at one of our annual flight shows. He was taking questions from the peanut galley too. Yep, Buzz Aldrin came all the way down here to New Zealand to attend the "War Birds Over Wanaka" airshow, a display of World War 2 and earlier planes. I didn't know he was coming here and just saw him on TV one evening while the show was on. A few days or weeks later he was up in a modern version of the vomit comit in the U.S. promoting its "weightless" flights. It's great to see an elderly man who is a world hero doing the sort of stuff that he does. He's in the same class as our Sir Ed Hillary and it's a great pity that some people are so ignorant of his accomplishments. Go, Buzz! Margamatix talks about Buzz's conscience. I wonder if he is aware that Buzz was a very active member of his church in 1969 and took communion shortly after landing on the moon. And yes, unlike Margamatix and his claims, there is real evidence for this.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 28, 2005 10:15:00 GMT -4
Margamatix, I strongly, strongly, strongly, suggest you go and read the information from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.There is a huge amount of information in these pages.... press kits... If Margamatix or anyone else sends me a personal message with their email address I'll email them something I spent months on about a year ago -- a typescript of the Apollo 11 Press Kit. It is stunningly detailed and full of heaps of fascinating information, such as the list of over 100 scientists worldwide who wanted to examine the lunar rocks and soil that I posted in another thread. Because it has none of the pictures or diagrams the transcript is a tiny fraction (413,213 bytes) of the size of the massive PDF copy of the original. On top of that, I have corrected dozens of errors in the electronic text of the PDF, so you can search for any word and be pretty-well guaranteed to find it. For instance, in the electronic text, kg = kR, Korean = Koryan, LM = LM, I&l, IM, LFI and LPI, and MCC = DiCC. Without knowing that, you might never find every instance of "LM" via a simple text search.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 28, 2005 9:58:02 GMT -4
Can you provide a checkable reference for any of this? He did, the apollo lunar surface journal... Tut, tut, tut. The Apollo 12 Flight Journal. As Margamatix is talking about doing some real research, I guess we'd better give him all the help and encouragement we can. He only has to use Mr Google, but in any case, here are links I recorded some time ago for the Apollo 8 Flight Journal - history.nasa.gov/ap08fjApollo 15 Flight Journal - history.nasa.gov/ap15fjand Apollo 16 Flight Journal - history.nasa.gov/ap16fjso it shouldn't be too hard to find the one for Apollo 12.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Aug 1, 2005 4:06:07 GMT -4
It's not a case of being "in on the hoax". I am sure they genuinely believe in what they are saying, just as those who persecuted "witches" in Salem did in the late 1600s. The Salem witchcraft hysteria is probably the closest thing in history to moon-landing-belief hysteria, but in the end, the truth outed, and it will about the Apollo moon-faking too. Margamatix, let's get back to the earliest posts in this thread. You seem to deliberately avoid answering the many questions asked of you, but please have the courtesy to apply yourself to those that follow with a thoughtful answer and not mere handwaving. I ask these questions because it is probably difficult for any reasonably sensible person to understand your response to the list of scientists. Answering thoughtfully, sincerely and honestly will at least give us some idea of the type of person we are dealing with. 1. Are you dismissing out of hand the qualifications and expertise and the ability to analyse lunar samples of all those scientists listed in the two posts on page 1? 2. Have you investigated any of the scientists and the tests that they proposed? 3. When you appeared to dismiss them with the above quote, did you seriously consider your answer and at the time were you sober and -- in your opinion -- in reasonable control of your faculties?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 30, 2005 9:08:16 GMT -4
Kindly stop handwaving and start 'splainin. The only things that Margamatix has proved on this board is that he is extremely ignorant of Apollo and the space programme in general (which is not a sin -- we all were once -- though he likes to talk as if he isn't), and that he is quite incapable of explaining almost anything or providing evidence to back up his claims. And that is sad. Most hoax-believers behave in a highly predictable manner. They are sometimes amusing, but mostly just frustratingly obstreperous, obstinate and obtuse obfuscators. Margamatix is no exception. Just another Oxxo, Earthorbit, Unknown, Cosmic Dave, etc. Still, excellent posts, guys. Although probably wasted on Margamatix and covering ground that has been covered many times before, I always learn new things and imagine that plenty of others are learning and enjoying themselves too. But not Margamatix.
|
|