|
Post by PeterB on Feb 24, 2011 7:50:51 GMT -4
No worries. Apology accepted!
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 24, 2011 7:44:38 GMT -4
the Shuttle was an example of case 2. If you think the shuttle was "cheap", I'd hate to see your example of one that wasn't. LOL. I meant cheap in that NASA's Shuttle budget was constantly being cut. For example, one budget cut forced them to ditch liquid fuel boosters in favour of cheaper (to develop) SRBs. Another budget cut forced them to go to the Air Force for money, forcing a design compromise (the delta wing). I think this is an important point, and perhaps more important than the expense of the Shuttle being reusable. My impression is that the Challenger accident was made possible by a culture change in NASA from "don't launch unless safe" to "launch unless not safe", and the loss of experience meant the loss of some of the willingness to look for problems, of having the humility to accept there's always something more to learn (in this case, the dangers of launching when it was very cold). And I think this is a very difficult issue to resolve. I can accept the validity of arguments from several sides. 1. NASA seems to have spent a lot of money going very slowly in developing Orion, Constellation and the Ares rockets. I'm reminded of a comment attributed to Apollo engineer Joe Shea - that engineers can always think of ways to make things better, but at some stage you need to lock down your configuration and complete that design. Without a definite target such as Kennedy set, I can easily see these programs meandering along, steadily costing more. 2. Going back to the Moon as the Bush plan provided for can be presented as just Apollo Mark 2, with little benefit gained, even though it'd be spectacular to watch. The idea of going to the Moon just to keep aerospace engineers employed seems a little cart-before-horse. And the cost is such that I don't blame taxpayers for grumbling. NASA isn't necessarily the best organisation to run space missions - any more than government agencies run airlines. Perhaps it'd be better if it was pruned back to something more like the N.A.C.A., and do the research for private companies to use. 3. The idea of the USA surrendering the ultimate high ground to other nations certainly makes me uneasy. Ragging Americans is nearly a national sport here in Oz, but I'll go for America over China or Russia any day. The problem though is that if you want a national space program, you need to spend the money, and Congress doesn't seem to be able to organise itself to manage that.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 23, 2011 8:06:12 GMT -4
I'm reminded of the service notice at a cafeteria across the road from work, somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Adapted for NASA, it would be:
I think Apollo was an example of case 3, and the Shuttle was an example of case 2. I have a feeling that a couple of Soviet programs (Voskhod and early Soyuz) were examples of case 1.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 23, 2011 7:57:39 GMT -4
Those artifacts could be models, balsawood frames. One simple question: WHY?If you're willing to accept that there are real, actual human-made artifacts on the moon, why is it so difficult to accept that they were put there by human pilots... Eh? I didn't say that. That was HagbardCeline.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 9:21:53 GMT -4
Okay, I think it's time for what I consider the most absolutely fundamental question in this kind of case. What would it take to convince you that you were wrong, Hagbard? That's a good question. I used to think that if I saw the remains of the lunar bases myself if I went to the moon I'd know that it had been done. But even then I'd wonder if I was still being conned. The recent Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter mission showed what appeared to be the remains of a LM decent stage, but was it? I don't necessarily go along with Jarrah White's view that these photoes were Photoshopped, although I don't rule it out. Those artifacts could be models, balsawood frames. If I was ever in a spacesuit walking through the remains of Tranqulity Base and the Eagle I'd be very impressed indeed, but then I'd have to add the proviso: If I'm not being hypnotized by government mind control. I know this makes my opinion virtually unfalsifiable, but I've answered your question honestly. We are living in George Orwell's "age of universal deceit" whether we like it or not. If you want me to lie and be a hypocrite just say the word and I'll repeat after you: We really did go to the moon. Oh please, get over yourself. If you think we live in a world akin to Orwell's "1984" I'll assume you haven't actually read the book. If life's so hard in Oxford in the UK, perhaps you could move somewhere like Afghanistan, or Lesotho, or North Korea. You're simply trying to find every excuse to not accept what the evidence suggests. You set the evidence bar far higher for NASA and Apollo than you require for evidence which supports your views. You say you could be hypnotised by NASA to trick you. Yet you unquestioningly accept what the radiographer said at the hospital? How do you know she's not an Illuminati disinformation agent trying to confuse you? Out of interest, do you question every part of reality to the extent that you question the reality of Apollo? The patients and staff you deal with every day - what do you do to confirm they're real humans and not Reptilians? Are you sure the cars passing you on the street are real and not holograms? We don't want you to be a hypocrite. We want you to open your eyes and your mind, and consider you might be mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:50:34 GMT -4
Well I could if I'm in the area. I live in Oxford, so I've got the best and brightest on my doorstep. I did try this once and the individual just gave me a scornful look and shook his head. Who did you ask? What was his area of expertise? What did you ask him? That's true. How about you look them up, instead of paraphrasing science books intended for kids?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:43:25 GMT -4
I Know They Are Variable ...What do I find? Condradictory and diverging figures!? I wish you'd explain how these two statements are supposed to contradict each other. "Of course I know the Belts vary. My problem is that they vary."
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2011 8:20:24 GMT -4
PeterB, I've got to the title page and it says 1976; that's 4 years after Apollo ended.... The main point is the amount of the detail. Good. Keep reading.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 19, 2011 21:48:23 GMT -4
If it had happened during an Apollo mission, would it have been a show stopper?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 19, 2011 21:47:05 GMT -4
I was just about to say those things too!
G'day georgevreelandhill, and welcome to the Apollo Hoax forum. As you should be able to tell from the caption at the top of the screen, most people here accept the reality of Apollo. HagbardCeline is the only vocal exception at the moment...
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 17, 2011 8:22:48 GMT -4
I've looked for figures on the internet for the dimensions and consistency of the Van Allen Belts and come up with two contradictory quotes. That's worrying if you're planning a space mission today, let along 40 years ago! This post is an answer to all the people, I've lost count how many, who asked me for additional evidence. Was one of those figures from the site trebor linked to? And have you visited your local university yet? Talked to the geologists or physicists there?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 17, 2011 8:18:03 GMT -4
I don't know for sure why, but it's important to understand the political climate of the day to make a guess. There may well have been a situation where rash claims and reckless boasts could have been the order of the day. Kennedy himself was just a couple of years from being assassinated by his own administaration...America and much of the rest of the world was gripped by an endemic hysteria caused by fear of nuclear war and "Reds under your beds". The Soviet Union, America's Cold War Rivals (as they were perceived) were sprinting ahead in the Space Race after the success of Sputnik and Vostok. It's not the kind of atmosphere where level-headed rational types are granted a respectful audience. Kennedy could have been put under pressure from PR, Intelligence and strategic advisers to say something explosive and mega-daring. A goal! A vision! to give the American people the reassurance that they were still in with a chance!... so Kennedy listened to his advisers and made his speech. It might have only been after the passion of it had died down that in the cold light of day the true magnitude of the task he'd taken on board was understood. Four hypotheticals in one theory. Not bad. How about you look at the documented history of the time, courtesy of Wikipedia (Apollo Program): So Kennedy waited eight days after Gagarin's flight before asking Johnson to do some research. Johnson took a week to investigate before reporting back. Kennedy then waited another 4 weeks before making his announcement. Doesn't sound like a rush job to me.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 17, 2011 8:06:47 GMT -4
...let's deal with the van Allen Belts first. A radiographer told me that it depends on the is intensity of the particles and duration you're exposed to them. She asked me for excact figures on what those were and I showed her links to the two pages I quoted a few pages ahead which give contradictory information on the Belts and she shook her head in bemusement saying: "There's no way to be sure from two so widely diverging estimates." Have you visited the link that trebor provided? Here it is again: modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/magnetos/AP-8-min-max-76-6.pdfPerhaps you could read the material in it before you say anything else about the Van Allen Belts. Perhaps you could discuss it with your radiographer friend.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 9, 2011 9:28:10 GMT -4
Actually I'm somebody who wants to expose one of the biggest hoaxes ever played on humanity. Well the hoax has to exist before you can expose it. Or are you so sure Apollo was hoaxed that no amount of evidence will change your mind? That's perhaps an important question to ask: Can you accept the possibility that you're wrong about Apollo? Which contemptible and violent way? Are you talking about Apollo? What was contemptible and violent about Apollo? Do you want to expose abuses? Or do you just want to expose Apollo, faked or not? Yes, governments do violent and contemptible things, and they should be brought to account for them. But if you accuse them of crimes they very obviously didn't commit, then you lose credibility. You can foam at the mouth all you like about how the horrible American government faked Apollo, but the quality of your arguments is dismal and you just look silly. Then why do you try so hard to not understand the evidence we provide? Why do you ignore the questions we ask of you (like mine in replies 750 and 768)? Apollo was a media stunt - to convince countries around the world of the superiority of American technology. That doesn't mean it was faked. It's not a popularity contest. It's evidence and facts versus some vague suspicion. Now try learning some real science.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 9, 2011 9:15:52 GMT -4
You would want this document : modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/magnetos/AP-8-min-max-76-6.pdfWhich gives a good model of the VAB during solar minimum and solar maximum. (It changes you know, depending on solar output and the earths magnetic field.) Commercial satellite operators would need such data and do use it routinely. Why would HagbardCeline want that document? He's got his George W Bush Presidential Library to refer to: a children's book and a book bought at a science museum (ooh!), both of which he's looked at in the last 30 years. /sarcasm Come on, HagbardCeline, click on that link and tell us what you think of the data. Or do what I suggested before and talk to some of the geologists and physicists at your local university.
|
|