|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 4:59:09 GMT -4
I didn't start that thread, and I have not speculated on the origin of the rocks in question, other than to point out that rocks *could* be collected robotically. But I've also pointed out the problems with the theory that they were collected robotically, and I was hoping that you might be able to address those problems. Okidoke. That's fine. Neither am I. However, I've learned enough from my research that the problems with a theory of robot collection make it effectively impossible. I've got a book at home about the construction, about 10 years ago, of a copy of an ancient Athenian trireme - a warship powered by rowers. Before construction began, there was a vigorous debate between the enthusiast and the expert. The enthusiast was convinced the rowers were arranged on three separate levels, while the expert said the rowers were on one bench, with three rowers pulling the one oar. Each side presented its evidence, and the debate seemed to be going nowhere. Then the enthusiast uncovered a piece of art which seemed to suggest he was right and the expert was wrong. The expert's response was, in effect, "My position is based on all the evidence which has been available until now. Therefore I'm going to ignore this new piece of art. So you still haven't proven I'm wrong." Margamatix, you're sounding very much like the expert in that story. You've presented some evidence to support your argument, and that's fine. I've presented some evidence to support my argument, but you're giving the impression that you're refusing to consider it, allowing you to still doubt the reality of Apollo. I suppose I have only one more question to ask you: What would convince you that Apollo happened as NASA said it happened? Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 1, 2005 20:58:25 GMT -4
G'day Margamatix
I was wondering if you'd like to return to the Rocks thread and discuss my latest post, please.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 9, 2005 4:49:11 GMT -4
I was looking at the Coke bottle footage last weekend. I noticed that the artefact appeared on the screen, then moved across it in jerks (which obviously corresponded to Aldrin's movements). This alone would suggest it couldn't have been accidentally kicked across a sound-stage, as even Coke bottles don't materialise out of nothing. So if it hadn't been an artefact of the camera, the only possible alternative would have been something introduced into the video. This, incidentally, would appear to invalidate Una Ronald's conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 4, 2005 23:00:01 GMT -4
G'day Turbonium
How many seconds of the video clip did these people see? And a lot of the pictures you've posted on this forum have so little context that it's not surprising that people might come up with unusual explanations.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 4, 2005 1:04:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 3, 2005 2:17:18 GMT -4
I've never been a hoax believer. There were, for a while, a few hoax claims I couldn't explain, but once I read an explanation with background, I had no further problems.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 2, 2005 22:52:31 GMT -4
Which got me thinking - does anyone on this site have a particular motivation for their stance on these things? Be honest now, if you can..... Well, I belong to the Skeptics. It’s a small group, but affiliated with a number of similar groups around Australia and the world. As a kid I’d always been interested in rockets and space travel, though I don’t remember Apollo specifically (I was 2 during Apollo 11). But after joining the Skeptics I helped organise stalls in which we’d hand out pamphlets discussing various beliefs and the Skeptics’ view of them (astrology, creationism, water divining, reincarnation, and so on). At one of these stalls I was introduced to an on-line science forum (Dr Karl’s Self Service Science Forum at www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/). At the forum I noticed that one of the questions often asked by new people was whether the Moon landings were faked, usually prompted by that Fox show (which I still haven’t seen). It was a whole new field to explore, and I quickly worked out that the fakery arguments were of poor quality. I wrote a pamphlet for the Skeptics which discussed the Moon Hoax and how its arguments could be debunked. This later turned into a four-page article in the Australian “Skeptic” magazine, of which I’m quite proud. And as a result of that interest, I became a regular on Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy Board and then this one. And membership of the BABB taught me about the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, which is one of the best sites to learn in depth about Apollo, and that in turn led me to the Apollo Flight Journals. As to my motivation, as I said I'm a Skeptic. I try to judge all concepts and theories on the basis of the evidence. Having decided, on the basis of the evidence, that Apollo is real, I like to educate people who hold the view that Apollo is a fake. But I don't look only at Apollo; all sorts of other misconceptions have my interest too.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 1, 2005 21:05:38 GMT -4
G'day Margamatix
Thanks for the info. Definitely a worthy project, and I wish you good luck with it. I have to say I didn't know roller coasters were built that long ago. When was the first one built?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Aug 1, 2005 0:29:24 GMT -4
Jay The short answer is that it represents a change in the percentage of votes for two major parties between two elections. In Parliamentary countries, the country is divided into electorates of roughly equal numbers of voters. Australia, for example, is divided into 147 electorates for national elections, with each electorate (or “seat”) containing about 70,000 voters. In Australia (as in the UK or America) there are two main parties. In Australia, they’re the Liberal Party (politically conservative, and currently in power), and the Australian Labor Party (politically more left wing). At election time, each party will field a candidate for each seat, and a number of independents will also stand for election. Generally, the contest will be between the two major parties. To determine who wins a seat, a candidate must have more than 50% of the votes cast in that electorate (different from the UK, which is first past the post). If no candidate gets 50%, the candidate with the lowest primary vote is excluded and his/her votes transferred the next candidate chosen by the various voters. This process is repeated as often as necessary until one candidate reaches the 50% goal. As a result, initial votes might look like this: Smith (Liberal): 47% Jones (Labor): 43% Brown (Greens): 7% White (Independent): 2% Black (Independent): 1% Black’s votes are distributed in accordance with the voters’ preferences, followed by White, and, if necessary, Brown, until either Smith or Jones reaches 50%. The final result might look like this: Smith (Liberal): 53% Jones (Labor): 47% So Smith holds the seat with a margin of 6% (53 – 47). This is known as the Two-Party Preferred result. At the next election, Labor fields another candidate. Despite a swing against the Liberals, Smith still holds the seat: Smith: 51% Chang: 49% So Smith now holds the seat by 2%, meaning there’s been a swing of 4% against Smith. Does this help? Or is it now as clear as mud? There’s a fair amount of information on how elections work in Australia at the Electoral Commission web-site: www.aec.gov.au/* End thread hijack *
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 31, 2005 23:15:59 GMT -4
Incidentally, Margamatix, what's your avatar a picture of? I just can't work out what it is and I'm getting more curious by the minute. :-)
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 31, 2005 22:53:42 GMT -4
G’day Margamatix Neil Armstrong was interviewed back in September 2001 by Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley. The interview covered all aspects of Armstrong’s life in addition to Apollo 11. You might like to read it, at: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/Select Apollo 11, then click on the link titled “Neil Armstrong 2001 Oral History Interview” The transcript of the interview is 106 pages long. Below I’ve listed the page numbers which roughly cover various aspects of Armstrong’s life. You’ll see that they didn’t talk about just Apollo 11 - it’s covered in only 12 of the 106 pages, and preparation for Apollo covers 16 pages. This is a man who’s lived a rich and varied life. Childhood: 1 – 6 Early flying career: 6 – 14 Korean War service: 14 – 23 Further studies: 23 – 25 Test pilot years: 25 – 41 Astronaut training: 41 – 53 Gemini 8: 53 – 59 Apollo preparation: 59 – 75 Apollo 11: 75 – 87 After Apollo: 87 – 106 It’s also interesting to note Armstrong’s comments about the end of Apollo and what’s happened in the time since… Brinkley: “The Apollo program closed in 1972. Is it surprising that we haven’t gone back to the Moon in so long, and did you ever imagine that it would take so long for people to return, for us to return?” Armstrong: “Well, had you asked me that question 30 years ago, I would probably have said, no, I can’t imagine that we’ll make such a small number of steps over the next three decades. But, looking back on it, I find it fairly understandable in the light of conflicting requirements for resources that the country has. It has a lot of other important challenges. I suspect that we’ll get some chances.”
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 31, 2005 21:24:58 GMT -4
G'day Margamatix
Any thoughts on the radio communications?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 28, 2005 22:31:38 GMT -4
Can you provide a checkable reference for any of this? G'day Margamatix Are you asking me whether I checked those half-time scores from newspapers of the time? No, I haven't. I live in Australia, so I don't have easy access to American newspapers of 1969 with college football scores. However, I dare say I could visit the National Library, which does have some old overseas newspapers. I might get lucky. If you're asking me for a source of the statements, you'll see that others have provided links to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and the Apollo Flight Journals. I find reading old newspapers a fascinating hobby. You get to see history in a whole new light when you read it as the news of the day after. In terms of Apollo, you can see the massive interest which climaxed in Apollo 11, had a brief surge again with Apollo 13, and sadly tailed off for the later missions. So, if you'd like me to chase it up, let me know, and I'll see what I can manage.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 28, 2005 3:07:08 GMT -4
Here's an example of some real-time sports scores (I assume American football). Just over a day into Apollo 12, and the spacecraft is over 100,000 miles from Earth. The crew have just woken up and the Capcom is giving them the news.
This is from the Apollo 12 Flight Journal.
Cheers
= = = =
027:57:59 Weitz: Okay. Whoever answered me that time was way down in the mud and hardly readable. World attention is on the Flight of Apollo 12. The Soviet Union held the crew as courageous; and Tass, the official Soviet news agency, reported the start of the mission and a brief factual report in both of its Russian and foreign language reports. Czechoslovak television carried a live coverage of the lift-off, complete with an explanation of technical details. In West Germany, all radio and television networks carried the launch live, as did the Japanese Broadcasting Company. The launch is being described by such adjectives as "spooky" and "cliff hanging." Even President Nixon, a one-time Navy man himself, admitted he had some anxious moments but added, "I'm really proud of those three men up there." Weather is a news item in Houston where temperatures are expected to dip into the 20's tonight. Automobile owners are being advised to put anti-freeze in their car radiators. Today's a voting day in Houston as Houston picks a mayor, eight councilmen, four school-board members, and decides upon a number of special issues. In sports, Houston Oiler Woody Campbell ended rumors and speculation yesterday by strolling into the Oiler training room and putting on his uniform. He says he's in good shape after 10 months as an MP with the First Infantry Division in Vietnam and hopes to be in action very soon. We're working up some ball scores for you; the only one available right now is a halftime score, it's Ohio State 28 and Purdue 7.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 27, 2005 21:54:56 GMT -4
G’day Margamatix
Here’s something else you might like to consider about whether Apollo was real.
NASA and the astronauts communicated via radio (well, der!). For missions orbiting the Earth, NASA used a huge number of ground stations all around the world, with each station remaining in contact for only a few minutes at a time. For missions to the Moon, NASA used three ground stations roughly 120 degrees apart on the Earth – Goldstone in California, Madrid in Spain and Honeysuckle Creek, just outside Canberra in Australia.
While Apollo was in the vicinity of the Moon, each station was in contact with the astronauts for about 8 hours as the Earth rotated on its axis.
So if Apollo was faked, you need to explain how the conversations between Mission Control and the astronauts were faked. You have to take into account the following matters:
1. The conversations weren’t pre-recorded. When the astronauts woke up, Mission Control would give them a brief news summary. This occasionally included sports scores. In some cases, the scores were from games which were in progress. There’s no way anyone could know these scores ahead of time. 2. The astronauts weren’t orbiting the Earth. Their spacecraft would have been clearly visible from Earth, the same way the Shuttle and ISS are these days. Also, if the spacecraft was orbiting the Earth, there’s no way a single ground station could keep in contact with them for 8 hours at a time. 3. The astronauts couldn’t be on the ground with a relay on the Moon, as the delay in the radio signal is appropriate for the distance from the Earth to the Moon, not from the Earth to the Moon and back to the Earth. 4. The crews of the ground stations couldn’t be fooled. Most of the staff at Honeysuckle Creek were Australians (I’ve met a few). They knew their equipment, and they knew that they were receiving signals from the Moon – which is what they were pointing their dish at. There’s no way that someone could have secretly fed them a signal from another source, and they had no reason to collude with the Americans in a fake. I dare say you could say the same about the staff at Madrid.
The only logical conclusion is that the astronauts had to be on the Moon, talking live to Mission Control on the Earth. The only alternative is a conspiracy involving thousands of people.
You might like to watch the Australian movie “The Dish.” It’s a fairly reasonable summary of the Australian role in Apollo. Unfortunately, it makes a number of simplifications for dramatic purposes, some of which have annoyed the staff who worked at Honeysuckle Creek, because it implies that all the serious work was done at the Parkes Radio Telescope. But it also shows that people who were entirely outside NASA (the staff at Parkes) assisted NASA.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Cheers
|
|