|
Post by cos on Dec 16, 2011 23:40:18 GMT -4
But the problem here is that most people are religious and not so keen to analyze. I think you'll find that you are the only one with a fixed view. People here can back their up their conclusions with science and evidence not vague hand waving. Perhaps for starters you can tell us how it is possible to film 5 hours of continuous footage in a vacuum and 1/6th g. Or find someone who can show how it is done. Oh don't tell me you haven't watched an entire EVA? Perhaps you should do so. Or perhaps you prefer to waffle some more. Come on, we backward 'religious' people await your scientific erudition.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Dec 16, 2011 23:14:56 GMT -4
Anyone who thought dust should form a sphere on the moon the same way water does in zero g is probably beyond help!
It never ceases to amaze me that the profoundly ignorant can be so aggressively arrogant. Dunning and Kruger barely scratched the surface.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 12, 2011 7:39:06 GMT -4
Given the mountain of evidence for the Apollo program we can conclude that there are no reasonable doubts that they went to the moon as stated.
Do you agree? Or do you have a reasonable doubt? So far you haven't raised one.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 10, 2011 21:04:10 GMT -4
Btw, all I argued for was that no one knows with certainty whether we went or not. I certainly won the debate, it seems. . You failed 100% to cast any credible doubt on any aspect of the Apollo record. Given the mountain of evidence for the history being EXACTLY as recorded I'd say with certainty that we went. Any other position is demonstrably irrational. In the same way that we couldn't fly across the Atlantic in 1900, moonrocks could not have been collected robotically because the capability did not exist. If you are suggesting it was possible then back it up with evidence, otherwise it is just fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 8, 2011 21:58:43 GMT -4
You seem to be insinuating that something (unspecified) isn't right and as such we cannot trust the analysis of the moon samples by countless geologists. From my own experience in mass spectrometry I know that meaningful results are obtained from extremely small samples and I don't believe archeologists have to destroy an entire object to determine its age and composition.
So just what well established and obvious methodology didn't Nasa follow that throws all the research into doubt? I assume you can point us at some standard references that we can all read and understand what percentage of 800lbs of moonrock needs to be ground up to achieve a meaningful result.
Or are you just waving your hands about?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 8, 2011 14:06:22 GMT -4
For those of us limited by logic, science, education and evidence, is there a point and would you care to share it?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 7, 2011 10:05:45 GMT -4
On the plus side it is a reminder to all the space fans here of the excellent Nasa Mission Reports! And I found out you wrote a book on Led Zepplin too - so that's my freaky hippy mates present sorted Anyway, very impressed with your work and you are a most welcome visitor to this site. All the Best.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 5, 2011 19:28:02 GMT -4
Things too quiet around here? Someone couldn't resist poking them with a stick forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=155984You'll regret it. DIF makes the HBs here seem like Newton. * yet again edited for spelling....
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 5, 2011 19:22:27 GMT -4
It seems a pretty elegant model to me and the worst case assumptions lead to a pretty small depression. I'd be surprised if it was 1/10th of that in reality. I'd hope most can follow the maths and it serves as an excellent starting point for a discussion on the topic when the matter is raised.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 5, 2011 18:23:35 GMT -4
Brilliant. Why didn't someone do this earlier. I am so sick of the blast crater nonsense.
Just one thing, could you reference the source for the bulk density of the lunar soil for completeness sake.
Fine work sir.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 4, 2011 19:53:44 GMT -4
My admiration to all who do battle at DIF. I actually think that it achieves something in that the HB's have been thoroughly debunked and reduced to name calling. The fact that don't have a platform to spew their uniformed gibberish unchallenged is no bad thing. To give the uninitiated a clue to the sheer bone headedness of some of the protagonists here are a couple of examples of what Apollo Gnomon and others have to contend with; Here Kliom observes the moon and low tide at the same time and concludes that the moon does not affect the tides. The notion that his understanding is less than complete is never entertained, he totally blanks Moving Fingers attempt to enlighten him and decides this is another example of being lied to. An illuminating insight into the HB mindset. forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=155984And here IanW dispenses with Archimedes and decides that surface tension floated the Titanic. forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=159623
|
|
|
Post by cos on Apr 4, 2011 12:47:11 GMT -4
What lazy journalism. This in no way supports a hoax quite the opposite.
Still, I found this gem of a comment on the article;
Sound can not travel through vacuum. How did we hear the famous words from Armstrong? For every question raised they will come up with some explanation and make the believers believe.
Taking stupidity to a new level even for a HB!
* edited for spelling
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 2, 2011 23:51:52 GMT -4
There is NO proof that NASA had the capability to return large (or indeed any) quantities of samples by robotic probe. There is plenty of evidence for the equipment Apollo used. Unless you know differently and can produce evidence of such a robotic cabability?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 2, 2011 23:45:34 GMT -4
You seemed surprised that every sample has been catalogued so meticulously. It only takes a little digging to find an avalanche of information on any aspect of Apollo. You ask if the samples could be lunar meteorites collected on earth. Fair question and here is the link I posted earlier which gives you the answer. meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htmPlease read it. It is interesting and you will be wiser.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Mar 2, 2011 19:01:21 GMT -4
The fact you so lightly dismiss the lunar samples proves beyond doubt that you have done zero research. Here is a primer for you to ignore. meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htmAnd before you insult me - I do understand it and more.
|
|