|
Post by cos on Feb 15, 2010 19:38:44 GMT -4
In all the supposedly elaborate things done to create a hoax I would suggest that digging a crater under the LEM would have been one of the simpler things if they thought it was required. And if the set designer forgot to dig said crater the last thing you would do is draw attention to it. So why would Armstrong describe the blast crater (lack of) as virtually his first act after stepping onto the moon? www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73jCthcAok&feature=related(5.48 in) Even before you have to do a bit of technical research to discover the actual downforce, the hoax proposition is a non sequitur. P.s I have seen 3 Harriers take off (vertically) from a grass strip and they never left a crater. If the hoax proponents say there should be a crater I want to see their homework, just saying it should is not an argument.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Feb 13, 2010 21:49:32 GMT -4
Jay, On further reflection, I went over to the other board and asked the moderator to delete my post where I quoted White's forgery allegations. There's no need for it to remain standing. TK, I briefly answered your question over on the general board. Thanks for your participation. Respect to you sir. You're a proper gent (as we might say in Blighty).
|
|
|
Post by cos on Feb 13, 2010 18:42:00 GMT -4
I wish you hadn't shown me this. I have just spent an hour reading such fascinating papers as; 'A study to determine optimum lunar lighting conditions for visual selection of LEM touchdown point' The detail and research that went into every aspect of the mission is astounding and it is here for all to see (thousands of man years of work). Only someone speaking from complete and utter ignorance can make outrageous statements concerning documentation. Someone recently on these boards made the (false) accusation that there were no blueprints for the Saturn V. Even if this were true, what point were they trying to make? That the Saturn V didn't exist?!!
|
|
|
Post by cos on Feb 6, 2010 16:46:38 GMT -4
... Any result that isn't peer reviewed is automatically highly suspect and irregular if there's any controversy. But their isn't any controversy in the engineering and scientific community about this experiment and you saying so does not make it so. You seem to have got hold of the phrase 'Peer Reviewed' and have no concept as to what it means and when it should apply. There is nothing to 'Peer Review' here. The experiment and equipment was well documented prior to the missions so engineers were well aware of the specs, the locations were publicised and the results have been published in numerous scientific journals over decades for all to see. Anyone, to this day can repeat the experiment. No technically literate person has any issue with these reflectors. Laser reflective rocks! Bounce a laser off the moon and you'll only find them at the locations of the known reflectors. Bit of a coincidence huh?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Feb 6, 2010 1:35:42 GMT -4
I think that is a little unfair on Professor Rourke. That message is 3 weeks old. In the meantime Rourke has supplied his data to GoneToPlaid. The latest video is here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEDFJJoPa6MI'll admit I don't understand the maths. But as far as I can gather one of the Topo maps is inaccurate. However instead of realising this Rourke decided to leap to the absurd conclusion that Apollo 15 photos were faked. The interesting thing is what happens now, will Rourke accept that he is wrong or will he double down? Well he hasn't replied to GonetoPlaid and he has posted additional CT stuff on his blog. Time to check if his academic qualifications are real!
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jan 28, 2010 10:34:15 GMT -4
The topographic data he used wasn't accurate. What I find unforgivable in a man a science is, that based solely on this data, he jumped straight to the conclusion that the photos were faked. The clearly observable perspective changes should also have caused pause for thought. Occam's razor?
I am happy he has shared his data (and the error unearthed - remains to be seen if he'll admit it) but going public with such an egregious claim is frankly astounding and won't help his Professional reputation.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jan 27, 2010 21:24:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Dec 14, 2009 10:49:16 GMT -4
FM,
Do you now understand how Apollo safely navigated the Van Allen Belts? I've certainly learnt something from this thread (thanks to Bob B, drewid et al.) and it would nice to know that you had too.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 17, 2009 19:27:26 GMT -4
Posted by andreas on Today at 4:52pmConclusion: The more I investigate on these video sequences the more contradictions show up. I am convinced more than ever that these videos were shot in a studio.
Andreas, if I were presenting a hypothesis and it was so universally panned I might, just might, have pause for thought. I am afraid that it would be apparent to a high school student that the lack of a suitable reference totally invalidates all your extrapolations. The reason you can't convince us is a) because your methodology is just plain wrong or b) we are all Nasa stooges in on the conspiracy. You will NEVER convince any technically literate person. If this disappoints you I suggest a more receptive audience at YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 13, 2009 17:19:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 6, 2009 14:25:02 GMT -4
So was fm a seagull poster? It would be nice if a HB conceded the point but they just seem to either slope off or ignore the fact that their question has been comprehensively answered and simply jump to some other issue. I might be old fashioned but I think it is ill mannered. They just seem to be attempting to score points and regard enlightenment as a form of weakness.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 4, 2009 20:40:17 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cos on Nov 3, 2009 23:47:18 GMT -4
and I think it was Surveyor 6 that measured cosmic rays on the lunar surface. The Biomedical Report of Apollo quotes the following figures; Cosmic ray fluxes, consisting of completely ionized atomic nuclei originating outside the solar system and accelerated to very high energies, provided average dose rates of 1.0 millirads per hour in cislunar space[**] and 0.6 millirads per hour on the lunar surface.
[**]That region of space between the Earth and the moon or the moon’s orbit.lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htmI have re-read the thread and I think a lot of information has been provided. Clearly research was carried out. Bear in mind this was all carried out with the short duration Apollo missions in mind and not with the idea of staying for months. I don't find it at all strange that we are now researching in greater depth given the proposal to build a moon base. Just what is your point?
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 15, 2009 17:13:33 GMT -4
From the mission debriefing (p84); history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TechCrewDebrfV1_2.pdfArmstrong We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn’t precisely determine touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights.
Aldrin I called the contact light.
Armstrong I’m sure you did, but I didn’t hear it, nor did I see it. I heard you say something about contact, and I was spring loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don’t know whether we had actually touched prior to contact or whether the engine off signal was before contact. In any case, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface. The touchdown itself was relatively smooth; there was no tendency toward tipping over that I could feel. It just settled down like a helicopter on the ground and landed.
Towards the end of this sequence from the 16mm camera on the LEM the first thing that Armstrong describes after stepping off the ladder onto the moon is the blast impression caused by the landing. Don’t HB’s do any research? www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73jCthcAokedit: I mean if the blast crater that the HB's claim is such a glaring omission from the 'fake' set, why the hell would the first thing Armstrong do is describe the very lack of a crater? If they thought they needed a crater wouldn't they just of dug one? Clearly they never thought they'd encounter the superior intellect of the HB's. It is just so stupid it is exasperating.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Oct 12, 2009 19:59:22 GMT -4
Thanks Jay. Nice analysis as ever.
My 'they got away with it' comment was a tad flip but I was incredulous that anyone can make so many egregious statements. e.g.
and still try and lay claim to be an impartial logical observer! To quote Buffy The Vampire Slayer 'Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic'.
|
|