|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 4, 2008 12:11:18 GMT -4
Armstrong obviously rejected and I believe to know why...There's more to the story. Sibrel lured Armstrong to the interview on false pretenses, claiming to be from one of the well-known cable science-oriented networks. Armstrong knows full well who Sibrel is and has dealt with him before. Indeed it was Armstrong's complaint against Sibrel for trespassing that got Sibrel fired from his job at a television station. Armstrong's response is, essentially, What! You again? Should Armstrong accepted, he would have given Sibrel the chance of accusing him of saying/acting or do any sort of things in exchange for money.Likely worse. When Sibrel made his statement to the Los Angeles prosecutor asking for battery charges to be filed against Buzz Aldrin in the famous altercation, he stated that his aim was to present Aldrin with an honorarium for his appearance, accuse him of taking money to talk about something "he never did," and get his response on camera. Shortly after the incident, the complaint was published to one of the legal document scavenging sites. It appears Sibrel's intent in making Astronauts Gone Wild was to do whatever it took to embarrass them or make them seem dishonest or evasive. Thank you for clarifying that part. It's a lot worse than I believed, seems that Sibrel has some sort of mental illness (trying to not use pejorative words...)
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 3, 2008 13:36:55 GMT -4
Another dumb thing has just died ;D PS, not referring to you... The smiley sufficed to dispel any worries, but I appreciate the feelings-protective postscript. I'm actually a little disappointed at the quality of the material HB's have come up with. I guess claiming that Apollo was a hoax isn't something that people with solid scientific backgrounds do. Edit: Fixed the quote. Yes, it is outrageous. I was watching a video on YouTube, I believe it was Armstrong interrupted. It shows Sibrel offering Armstrong 5000 dollars or so, to swear on the Bible. Armstrong obviously rejected and I believe to know why: it's Armstrong. He was chosen to be the first human on the Moon because he sees a situation from every point of view and does what he thinks is right. Until now, he has been right all the time. Should Armstrong accepted, he would have given Sibrel the chance of accusing him of saying/acting or do any sort of things in exchange for money. Surely we would be seeing Sibrel shouting that Armstrong says anything for money and so on... Grrr, I hope Sibrel has no children, he might spoil precious human beings...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 2, 2008 10:27:18 GMT -4
Another advantage to such a system, was that it didn't require the three colour tubes that an ordinary colour video camera of the time would have required, a reduction of weight by about 2/3rds I would imagine, not mention the power savings as well. I have a better idea, put them in a magic cavern at the 1/6th gravity depth. About equivalent would be my guess. ;D ;D Or we could put them in that paper-bag-filled-with-helium set...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 1, 2008 22:21:33 GMT -4
Cz you are correct. The TV camera (in this case the GCTA RCA camera) had essentially a black and white camera tube with a rotating mechanical wheel in front of the pickup tube with the following filters: Red Blue Green Red Blue Green. A synch pulse triggered by the spinning wheel allowed ground stations to know which filter was being used, and could subsequently begin the following: The signal was sent via the LCRU to the "umbrella" on the LRV which was the transmitter back to earth. Using a bore-sight type setup the astronauts had aligned the antenna to face the earth. Ground stations at Honeysuckle/Tidbinbilla, Madrid; and Goldstone received the signal which was first sent through a tape loop system which removed any doppler distortion and synched, via analog means, the signal to standard 525/60 TV. The signal was then sent to a custom built (by CBS labs) video disk recorder which stored each frame into a buffer and then mixed the red blue and green together from sequential frames to form a colour NTSC compatible signal. This was then sent to mission control and also to the networks. Almost forgot: John Lowry also cleaned up the image to remove alot of noise prior to the signal going to Houston. The kinescopes were made in the early 1970's mainly because the National Archives did not accept a non-film based medium to be archived. Thus all complete Apollo downlinks held at the Archives are kinescope, whereas those held by CBS would be their own 2" videotape. That's using the brain hard. An incredible way of transmitting color video over a very narrow bandwidth, didn't know this. It makes me angry to think that the HB discredit all the engineering behind the Apollo program. They will burn in hell...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 1, 2008 22:10:35 GMT -4
OMG... now this guy is actually suggesting that, in order to fake the footage and to simulate 1/6 gravity, they filled a soundstage (uses the therm "environment") with helium... You know, so many old folks who shop where I work insist on having even the lightest groceries placed in paper and plastic bags, I've often wondered if the interaction between the two bags causes some kind of anti-gravity effect. So I then figured out, "Oh, that's how they faked the Moon landings! They wrapped the set in a giant plastic bag, and then put a paper bag over it! You PANs just got pwned! ;D ;D ;D ;D Reminds me of Homer's (Simpson) schematics for his time machine...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 1, 2008 12:13:43 GMT -4
OMG... now this guy is actually suggesting that, in order to fake the footage and to simulate 1/6 gravity, they filled a soundstage (uses the therm "environment") with helium... Oh, and then there's the whole part of his argument where he doesn't have to supply answers to his questions, we just have to believe he's right since he's worked on dune-buggies and cars in the desert.... Cz That phrase alone wins the stupidity and ignorance championship.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 31, 2008 17:29:15 GMT -4
Did he check the ground clearance of a Formula 1 car? You'd be lucky to find anywhere on the moon where you could sit one on its wheels rather than its floor. The Moon must be perfectly flat - how else would you get those completely parallel shadows, otherwise? In the very unlikely event of taking an F1 up there, if they manage to start the engine, the only thing that could happen is a mad spinning of the wheels and no movement at all. No air, no downforce; 1/6 gravity, not enough mechanical grip. The guy waving the checkered flag at the Finish line will be very bored.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 31, 2008 9:24:21 GMT -4
F1 - you mean the thruster? I think he mean a Formula 1 race car. Going by "John Death's" theory, an F-1 racer should do about 1,200 Mph on the Moon Cz Exactly Cz, I was talking about a Formula 1 race car.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 30, 2008 22:13:19 GMT -4
For me, the least convincing hoax supporter is David Groves. I almost run out of air when I saw that YouTube video of him. First states that the luminosity of the moon is too weak to illuminate objects in the shadows, and he presents as a proof... drums please, the photographs taken on the moon. He did not even recalled the fact that he said it WAS NOT THE MOON! And here's another explanation of the boot's hot spot: the diagram shows that the light source comes from... Armstrong. As it is supposed, the suit reflected a very large amount of light, thus proving that they were very well protected from the sun. Certainly, if I go to England, I won't hire this guy because he knows nothing about REAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 30, 2008 21:53:26 GMT -4
And how exactly does Uranium negate gravity....? It wouldn't negate gravity per se, but if a material much denser than earth's crust was above the cavern, it would reduce the depth at which the cavern would have to be to experience 1/6 * g by accelerating the cavern's occupants in an upward direction. Since otherwise this whole theory would be just plain unlikely. ;D Err... and how that cave managed to sustain that amazingly dense material without collapsing? Another dumb thing has just died ;D PS, not referring to you...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 30, 2008 20:52:28 GMT -4
I don't want to imagine how this guy figures out how an F1 works, surely he'd say that a F1 on the moon would have entered in orbit after a good kick to the throtle. Actually, you meant "fluid resistance".
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 30, 2008 18:30:26 GMT -4
I thought that he was trying to prank me with some sort of representation, latterly he added that Math is unreliable as there are phenomena such as ghost that do not fit into math, then I walked away and run a few steps latter.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 30, 2008 13:03:43 GMT -4
Thank you for all this. I knew the idea was absolutly nut-o-rama, it is nice to have numbers. Numbers are comforting. If today 2+2 =4, then by golly tomorrow 2+2=4 (in base 10 that is). Thank you. Let us see how he reacts. I know how, because I've talked to that kind of folks in college yesterday. And the answer is: "two + two is not necessarily equals to four..." And they will tell about some theories about Math that state that 2 + 2 !=4 and other crazy things.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 29, 2008 18:16:06 GMT -4
Indeed, there are some other kind of electromagnetic phenomena that does not necessarily fits the Gauss' Law. It's not that, it's that while the hull was enough to stop most of the particles, it wasn't enough to stop all of the particles. As such while a few hours of exposure wasn't an issue as only a relative few of these sort of particles got through, if they were in their for ten days they'd have received far greater dosages. Sorry, misinterpretation of a very basic concept
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Aug 29, 2008 18:08:03 GMT -4
Did they not passed that on TV? That's weird, here they passed that part on the episode. You probably have less time alloted for advertising. Here in the US, "1-hour programs" are actually only 42-44 minutes long, with the remaining 16-18 miniutes taken-up by commercial breaks. In your country, they may allot less time for commercials, and so they didn't need to cut this cool scene. Very true, and they run it in a non-feature slot.
|
|