|
Post by sts60 on Feb 14, 2012 14:59:52 GMT -4
forthethrillofitall, I repeat that Eagle was never lost in any fundamental sense of the word. The location was always known by multiple means to be within a few nautical miles of the target point. [fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. initially denied that multiple means existed, then changed his story without acknowledging his error after others pointed this out.]
More importantly, the Apollo 11 mission had one primary objective - to "perform a manned lunar landing and return" - and the LM was always able to perform the necessary liftoff and rendezvous with Columbia.
fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. simply does not know what he is talking about. Nor does he have any interest in learning, since he refuses to accept correction from people who do understand the subject. His grasp of the underlying concepts is nil, and he has repeatedly lied about both his claims and himself. Moreover, by his own standard - "inconsistent, and therefore untrue" - he must be wrong, since he has changed his story so many times. He has also contradicted himself numerous other times without even realizing it, out of both ignorance and his modus operandi of simply making things up while changing the subject to avoid correction.
I find it puzzling you would choose to endorse such an inept and dishonest troll - especially a coward who shovels out childish insults and brags about how he'd take apart this or that Apollo hero in a one-on-one debate, then runs away when presented with the opportunity. Of course, that is your choice, but repeating his error-filled, inconsistent fantasies doesn't make them any more correct, or even remotely plausible.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 13, 2012 0:14:19 GMT -4
Any time you attempt to describe the OP's main point it is important to cite the epoch, due to the constantly changing nature of his arguments. That does not seem to be the case with this OP. He(she?) is not changing his(her?) fundamental story. It might be better to term it a "theme". At least I think so. One could indeed say that Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. did not change the main theme that the Apollo 11 LM was "lost". He was simply wrong all along, ignorant, and unable to learn anything from people who actually understood the subject. Eagle was never "lost" in any important sense of the term; not only was it known to be within a few nautical miles of the target point, most importantly it was always able to rendezvous with the CM to bring the crew home - the only absolutely necessary criterion for whether one is truly "lost" or not. This was pointed out to P1k/fd/DT/etc. many times, but he was never able to grasp these concepts. So the OP is correct. There are two stories. One story with the eagle lost and one story with the eagle found. No. There is one story - of a vehicle whose exact position is not known, but whose position is known within a certain degree of accuracy, and the various methods by which this was known and later refined. The rest is simply his utter lack of understanding of spaceflight and of basic engineering concepts, his inability to perform actual research, his failure to understand historical principles, and a heaping helping of his childishness, dishonesty, and gigantic ego. This is what one would expect with a hoax in which the main players desire the landing site location to remain unkown. No. It was what one would expect from a real first mission. There is no evidence - at all - for any "hoax", but there is a mountain of evidence for the real thing happening. If it is known then because no one is actually there the astronauts run a risk of exposure. Such as by the Luna probe "sintering" "as it hovered about"? That was one of Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.'s stories, and hillariously captured his utter ineptitude and the fairy-tale nature of his ridiculous claims. The facts are there and the logic that follows is sound. I have concluded from running these and other numbers for myself that this OP is on to something.You are repeating exactly the same errors, and manifesting exactly the same lack of understanding of the subject, as fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc. Granted he(she?) is scattered at timesHe is one of the worst writers I have ever seen; verbose, childish, disorganized, and dishonest. He routinely lies about himself and his arguments, and I and others have catalogued quite a few amusing examples of the times he has contradicted himself. He has demonstrated his ineptitude across a wide range of subjects. He also is a coward, hiding behind his keyboard while hurling puerile invective at people who have actually accomplished something of value, but running madly away when offered the opportunity to back up his boasts directly. but the investigative work is fairly thorough and accurate as far as I can see. Googling up various numbers and quotes confers neither context nor understanding, and does not constitute "investigation". ...This OP gets my vote. There is validity to this "lost eagle" business and I am presuming at this time there is a connection from "lost eagle" to hoax. As has been pointed out, in great detail, many times, Eagle was never "lost" in any significant sense of the word, and the OP has no qualifications to judge any of the data, no ability to understand it, no evidence for any of his claims, and no ability to explain any of the actual Apollo record. His entire sorry legacy, involving a host of sock-puppets banned here and at BAUT, and lying about his record from the get-go at JREF, is that of a childish incompetent posturing to get attention from some grown-ups on an Internet forum. I put the silly troll on ignore a long time ago. Certainly nobody in the real world cares, and his evasions and incoherent boasts continuing on JREF have no effect whatever on the legacy of Apollo. He's just another unknown loon ranting away behind the virtual 7-11, and even the small amount of attention he gets now will only last until the grown-ups stop paying attention to his tantrums.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 7, 2012 1:47:30 GMT -4
Playdor, should you happen to read this, please understand that your ignorance and dishonesty are very well documented here in quoted form, and that your desperate attempt to cover your tracks has failed. Crying to the hosting service after getting spanked so badly just makes your humiliation worse.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2012 20:44:07 GMT -4
Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. is a troll - not in the classic sense of posting simply to goad people to respond without any emotional investment on the troll's part, but a troll nontheless.
In his case, he simply wants to feel clever and get people responding to him to stoke his bloated ego. As incompetent and all-around clueless as he is, even he cannot miss that not one single person (AFAIK) has agreed with him on any of the forums he's bombarded with his bloviations. Therefore, he knows he'll never get anywhere with the people who ridicule him and point out his foolishness.
But he is getting grownups to talk to him constantly, and for him that's as good as he can hope for. It doesn't matter that everyone knows he's a liar, an incompetent, a coward, and a semicoherent child - or even that they point it out to him. All that matters is people responding to him; that makes him a troll.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 3, 2012 12:32:01 GMT -4
I think the following story is analogous to the situation with Eagle on the moon.... Surely all of us here would describe my predicament as being “lost”, but am I really? I know with certainty that I’m in downtown Columbus, and I know that I’m likely within a mile or so of my intended destination, I just don’t know exactly where I am within the downtown district.... Not a bad analogy, except all the time you see signs directing you back to the highway, so you can always get home. Also, you don't really need to meet a business associate; you simply need to take images and bring back some things from downtown Columbus. And you won't get a parking ticket for leaving your car there as you ride home on the motorcycle you brought with you.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 3, 2012 12:10:45 GMT -4
...Of all the things that convince me Apollo was hoaxed it is this and the astronauts' comportment. They never behave like guys that went to the moon. Now that I look at it in the light of evidence uncovered by others I see that this must be true. I disagree, and I have personally worked with a number of astronauts. Please explain exactly what qualifies you to judge the significance of the Apollo astronauts' comportment, and why I should give any weight at all to your uninformed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 3, 2012 11:48:16 GMT -4
...I have read that a greater concern than VA Belt radiation was the not unlikely occurrance of a high dose of radiation being delivered via a sporadic solar flare. Leaving aside the handwaving of "not unlikely", do you think that perhaps steps were taken to study, characterize, and mitigate the threat of solar flares? I read that flares releasing lethal radiation doses are not uncommon. More handwaving. What exactly is "not uncommon"? More importantly, what does it mean in the context of the mission planning? It is argued...By ignorant people. Not by people who actually understand the subject. ...Apollo missions would not be launched into the teeth of such dangerous circumstances.Loaded language. Every mission requires risk management of some sort, and a great deal of effort went into managing (identifying, characterizing, and mitigating) the risks of the Apollo missions. And they were risky; this was understood and acknowledged - which is not the same thing as passively accepting the risk. This seems very reasonable to me. It is reasonable that it seems reasonable to you, since you are evidently a layman unfamiliar with the program and spaceflight in general. But reality is more complicated, and more interesting. At what point, if any, do you intend to either offer more substantial arguments than uninformed handwaving and unuspported endorsements of the manifestly incompetent and dishonest Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc.? Or, alternately, possibly concede that people knowledgeable about spaceflight in general and Apollo in particular might be right and you might be wrong? ETA: added emphasis
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 30, 2012 11:16:58 GMT -4
...For the record, I also think we should be careful with describing people like Playdor as 'chew toys'. It doesn't do us any favours in the eyes of any impartial observers or fence-sitters. I think the issues with Playdor's understanding and attitude are perfectly displayed in the threads he participates in. True. I will refrain from further use of such descriptions. However, that I actually attempted to engage playdor on the merits of his claims, rather than simply attempting to "chew" on him, is also displayed in the threads. The same applies for everyone else, I think. He made claims; they were fairly challenged; he failed to deal with the challenges.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 29, 2012 15:28:31 GMT -4
For the record, I disagree with 1. banning playdor - who was at least a serviceable chew toy 2. changing the name of the thread
I'm not really worked up about either one, mind you. I just don't agree.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 29, 2012 15:21:31 GMT -4
laurel i don't see the need to share my science degrees with this forum, No one believes you have "multiple degrees in science". We are calling your bluff. i have told you that they are not in space science or physics (although once discovered, i love physics)If you love physics, you should learn something about it. You have demonstrated a profound and wide-ranging ignorance of the subject. if my data or deductions are wrong please address it.This has been done many times, and you have been also asked many times why, when you have demonstrated such ignorance and made so many fundamental mistakes, you fail to question your own premises. If you were any sort of a scientist - even an amateur - you would at least answer this question. The fact you don't speaks volumes about your fixity of unfounded belief. Please remember, though, you are not fooling anybody with your claims to any sort of scientific expertise. ETA: Oh, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 28, 2012 18:54:52 GMT -4
I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. Since forthethrillofitall doesn't really spend much time on this, and hasn't really offered anything of substance to discuss, why should you spend any time arguing with her? All the regular are aware of fattydash/Patrick1000/DoctorTea/etc.'s incompetence, mendacity, immaturity, and cowardice. Why bother arguing with someone who is offering a casual endorsement, unless she decides to engage in a substantive manner?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 25, 2012 14:12:56 GMT -4
I forgot one other thing. He's not only a liar, but a coward - an "Internet tough guy". Safe from behind his keyboard and forum handle, he crows about "perps" and how he would take down this or that test pilot or combat veteran. And, when offered to be put directly in contact with these people, he runs like mad in the opposite direction.
I think the technical term for this particular character trait is "chickensh*t".
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 25, 2012 14:07:05 GMT -4
The fundamental problem with Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/BFischer/BSpassky/mvinson/piersquared/<and many more sock-puppets> is that he's a troll. He craves attention, so he posts reams of nonsense and hurls puerile invective to get people to pay attention to him. That's why I stopped paying attention to him.
But that's not the only problem. He's a liar. He's lied about his history of sock-puppetry, lied about his qualifications, and routinely lies about his own claims. He's childish, and not in a charming way, but in a self-important-twelve-year-old kind of way. His immature ranting, repetitious and laden with encomiums to himself and cliches of kid-speak, is very tiresome. He's incompetent across a wide range of topics; he quote-mines snippets he can Google up for free, but doesn't understand any of the material, and routinely makes (but almost never acknowledges) amusingly fundamental mistakes. He's completely inept as a researcher; he can't grasp the difference between primary and popular sources, nor between materials proximal in time to the events and personal reminisices produced decades later. And he's just an execrable excuse for a writer; his bloated rants are disorganized and routinely self-contradictory, but because he likes to hear himself talk and get attention from the grown-ups, he can't stop from posting both new and recycled dreck.
The last is what makes him such a bad liar, especially for someone who lies as much as he does. A good liar always knows when to stop. But trolls like Patrick1000/fattydash/DoctorTea/etc. have to keep churning out the effluvium to keep getting attention. I concluded, however, I didn't have to reward his tantrums with my attention.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 23, 2012 23:53:33 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jan 18, 2012 21:07:52 GMT -4
sts60 what changed that the stars could now be seen? What happened is that they were in the shadow of the Moon, and their spacecraft was not brightly illuminated by the Sun, nor was there a large brilliant object (Moon or Earth) occupying much of their field of view. This should be obvious from the many explanations offered to you thus far. This demonstrates clearly - again - that astronauts saw stars under appropriate circumstances. Now that I have answered your question, I still want to know exactly what you mean by claiming to have "multiple degrees in science".
|
|