|
Post by sts60 on Jun 14, 2006 15:33:15 GMT -4
What I am saying is that the debunker can't blame the hoax believer for having already made up his mind before beginning the argument when he's just as guilty of having done the same.
No, but the HB can be blamed for refusing to change his mind, or even reconsider his assumptions, when every argument he brings forward is debunked. That's when "made up his mind before[hand]" crosses from merely being an initial viewpoint to an unalterably fixed viewpoint.
Consider examples from my (and many others') personal experience:
1a. I grew up believing the Apollo program landed men on the Moon and returned them to Earth, because I remember bits of it happening when I grew up, visited JSC as a kid, read about it, etc.
2a. I believed that there were WMDs in Iraq before the recent invasion (although I remember telling a friend when the invasion started, "We (U.S.) had better find them or we're gonna look like bigger a******s than usual").
1b. I grew up, studied physics, became an engineer, and worked in the space industry. I've worked for/with people who made Apollo happen; I've worked with astronauts; etc. I've garnered plenty of relevant expertise and found that everything I learn about Apollo makes perfect sense. I still believe Apollo happened pretty much as advertised.
2b. Based on plenty of information freely available even through mainstream media - I no longer believe there were WMDs in Iraq. They just weren't there. (Interestingly enough, this would have been much, much - by many orders of magnitude - easier to hoax than Apollo. "Throw-down" WMDs could have been prepared well ahead of time by a relatively small number of conspirators.)
Two cases in which my mind was "made up". One viewpoint supported by facts and retained; one viewpoint disproven by facts, and therefore discarded. Committed CTs, on the other hand, will almost never discard or even modify a viewpoint based on facts to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 9, 2006 9:54:09 GMT -4
Hi, thexrayman40. Welcome to the board.
Well, even at that resolution, it would be interesting to see what it would look like.
That's the problem. It wouldn't look like anything at all. It's below the minimum detector size (a single element of the imager).
It seems rather strange that the Hubble can give the detail that it does, of the say the planet Jupiter, some 670 million miles away (conservative estimate), but could not give better detail of our Moons surface that is only about 240,000 miles away.
Hubble did give much better detail of the Moon than it did of Jupiter, because the Moon is so much closer. The smallest details seen in a Hubble image of Jupiter are much, much larger in actual size than the smallest details of the Moon.
Our sattelites above the earth, at about 24,000 miles, can depict an object, we are told down to a size of 3 feet and possibly less, so down to 30 ft on Moons surface?
I've worked on commerical high-resolution Earth imagers, which can get down to roughly half a meter resolution. They orbit much closer than 24,000 miles; more like a couple of hundred. They could not obtain especially detailed resolution of the Moon - certainly not as good as many, many ground-based telescopes.
I think you're being fooled by the amazing pictures of "small" details on the Moon. They're impressive, but those small details are much larger than any Apollo artifact. Even Apollo 15, which imaged its own [IIRC] landing site with a big honkin' camera, didn't get much more than a dot.
It's simply the laws of optics.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 6, 2006 11:49:13 GMT -4
The contact lenses I'm wearing block something like 95% of UV.
I know how UV protection material looks like
Evidently you don't; or at least, you know only what a few types of UV protection look like.
another flaw in nasa's hoax.
No. Another flaw in your understanding of the world around you. You simply equated visually transparent = transparent to UV, in the same way you equated energy of a certain rare particle = radiation absorbed dose = average dose rate over the surface of a planetary object, without any grasp of the actual facts.
But this case is more embarrassing, because it required nothing more than Googling up what the transparent visor was made of, and then Googling up "Lexan UV". Rather than making even this minimal effort, you simply asserted your superior knowledge, which was quickly rebutted by several people who have paid a modicum of attention to the world around them.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 7, 2006 13:43:06 GMT -4
I propose the "Percy" as a unit of bogosity. Since the bogousness is so strong, everyday values will typically be measured in micropercies or even nanopercies.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 7, 2006 22:24:17 GMT -4
Is that per kilogram, sts60?Yes. It's also rads, rem, millisieverts, curie-volt-lumen^1.5/gallon(at 735 degrees Rankine for 90 minutes, let stand 10 minutes before serving) picopercies^2, joules/ smoot, furlongs/fortnight, and cubic acres per mole. They're all the same.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 7, 2006 16:36:19 GMT -4
This board can be a searing radiation hell at times. Bring your SPF 1.5*10^12 next time!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2006 14:17:16 GMT -4
See, back then, they only had vacuum-tube telekineticists who took a few decades to warm up...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 1, 2006 8:51:37 GMT -4
Pish-tosh. As margamatix would tell you, there's nothing to push against.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 22, 2006 10:27:17 GMT -4
Again, another complete impossiblity. There still is no way to confirm the Apollo landings on the moon by any means. Are you being deliberately dense? The many ways to confirm the Apollo missions, and we have laid them out in detail for an endlesss series of HBs who come on here waving their hands all excited after reading some idiot conspiracy site, thinking there's some magic proof suddenly uncovered after all these years. You are of course free to ignore these many lines of evidence, but your desire to do so does not mean they go away. 40+ some days of traveling to and from the earth and the moon and basically nothing photographed in transit? You may also ignore the explanations of why it is impossible to determine Apollo's position by such images (other than of the Earth and the Moon), but the fact is your premise is simply wrong. In fact, you didn't even get the basic fact right - there are plenty of images taken from space: LM and Earth from A11Earth eclipsing Sun from A12Lunar eclipse from A15Earth (with lens flare) from A15Earth during translunar coast from A16Earth during translunar coast from A17Of course, such images do indicate the positions of the Apollo spacecraft - unlike photographs of other planets, or of stars. And yes, there were photographs of the stars taken from at least one CM as well as by the UV telescope on A16. You're simply wrong on every single point you've made. We shouldn't forget to mention the tracking by independent observers on Earth of the spacecraft en route to the Moon, another verification of the missions. So you've unregistered? Might as well - you haven't bothered to learn anything, or make even a minimal effort at research.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jun 21, 2006 9:19:57 GMT -4
Definately would have taken some pictures of the constellations, planets, etc. What better time to have gottem them also. Six to eight days of travel to and fro. Being outside of the atmosphere.
Why? You can get better pictures of planets from Earthbound telescopes than from anything that Apollo could have carried. The same goes for constellations, which merely require a wide-angle lens and can be imaged from the ground without having to deal with the passive thermal control roll or disturbances caused by motion of the astronauts.
Also that would have been another way to disprove the hoaxers.
Why would you embark on such an enormous public undertaking, knowing you were being tracked there and back by the Soviets and other groups, bringing back hundreds of kilograms of unique lunar samples and a huge amount of still and motion imagery along with piles of other measurements, with the notion that you needed to take some pictures of stars - which are easy to fake - to prove it was "real"?
Being able to track and ascertain the exact positions of the CM/LM with the knowledge of where the constellations and planets were enroute.
You cannot determine your position from the stars and planets while in space. And, again, such images are much easier to fake than images of the lunar surface.
As the Earth and Moon revolve around the sun the views of the constellations say behind the moon if enroute to the moon would be different at different times of the years.
No. There are no discernable differences in views of the constellations over such short distances.
With the cold war going on the Apollo crafts were supposed to be able to ascertain their position and have the capability to guide themselves free of any help from NASA in the event of interferance from the Soviets. So one would think that they would have the capability to guide themselves optically, using star sightings, moon, earth and sun positions. Any pictures at all of the stars and planets at anytime throughout all of the Apollo missions would have been a plus to disprove the hoaxer's. Why not have one camera throughout all of the missions capable of this small feat?
Simply restating your mistaken notions of astrogation, and a useless type of "evidence", does not advance your argument. Nor does adding the incorrect assertion that no such cameras were taken on the missions; they were, as others have pointed out, and you could have found that out with a few minutes of Web searching.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 16, 2006 22:46:30 GMT -4
Don't forget the ALSEPs - Apollo Lunar Science Experiment Packages. These required hand deployment, hand setup, and hand fueling after removing the plutonium oxide heat source from a cask on the LM's landing strut. The ALSEPs had sensors spread out up to about a hundred meters wide, connected by wires to a central receiving station. Units placed on A12 and A14, 15, 16, and 17 transmitted data for years to ground stations all over Earth.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2006 14:12:48 GMT -4
Only in Wellington have I ever come across "Mrs Buckets"!
That's "Bouquets"!
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Apr 29, 2006 23:04:32 GMT -4
SMART 1 has been imaging the moon now for about 2 years. Has the ESA released any of the photos yet? Of course. www.esa.int/esaMI/SMART-1/index.htmlI read that toward the end of their two year program they were going to get closer to an altitude of around 11km where they could get adequate resolution to image the landing sites. They should have images by now or pretty soon!!!Well, apparently the xenon fuel is out, and the vehicle is expected to impact the Moon this summer. It will be interesting to see what kind of images they can obtain as it gets closer.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 1, 2006 23:08:25 GMT -4
No tracks No dust
There are plenty of examples of tracks, and dust clearly disturbed in a 1/6 G vacuum environment.
No stars
Stars where photogrpaphed from the lunar surface during Apollo 16. Stars were photographed during orbital night during Apollo.
If you are saying somelike the astronauts shold have seen a sky full of brilliant stars, it is up to you to quantify how many they could have theoretically seen when dark-adapted, and exactly how an astronaut on the lunar dayside could become dark-adapted. No handwaving allowed.
No sense
Your post makes enough sense to be understood, but since you are simply posting a few often-debunked claims without any support whatsoever, it fails completely.
If you want to make specific claims and support them, please go ahead. But if the above is all you're going to post-and-run, then you neither deserve nor will you receive any attention.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 1, 2006 14:05:33 GMT -4
Geez, I didn't even notice the flimsy-LM comment. We went through this at length with star/lordoftherings many months ago, who insisted that NASA was "disrespecting" everyone by not making a prettier spacecraft. Never mind several people, including space engineers, pointing out how it reflected actual engineering practice; she knew better. As did Moon Man, margamatix, etc. Yes, real spacecraft use tape and thin films and foils and blankets. No, real spacecraft don't look like the flying industrial refineries of which Hollywood is so fond. I know mosis2 has changed his opinion, but if he's interested in reading more about it, he should search back (what, a year now?) for posts involving "Kapton", "H-film", and "Mylar". He should also download the LM operations manuals and structure handouts (handily compiled here by Bob Andrepont).
|
|