|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 11:04:33 GMT -4
Although the following is certainly not proof of anything, I present it to give you something to think about… Despite the total lack of any supporting evidence whatsoever, let’s suppose that NASA really did have the technology in 1969 to land unmanned probes on the Moon for the purpose of robotically collecting and returning large quantities of rock and soil. Why have they not adopted this technology to use elsewhere in the four decades since? There is a whole army of geologists who would love to get their hands on samples from Mars, for example. Does it make sense that NASA would simply abandon the great advances made in robotic sample retrieval? I think they would just be itching to go to Mars and try to collect samples from there. Granted, returning samples from Mars is not the same as from the Moon, but with such stunning success at returning lunar samples, the engineers would be chomping at the bit to adapt the technology and reach out other destinations. Yet, here we are in 2010 and NASA has not returned a single sample from anywhere other than some dust collected while flying through space. If NASA really did collect the lunar samples robotically, what a total waste for not doing anything more with the technology for nearly 40 years. Furthermore, if NASA could land such a large and complex vehicle on the Moon as would be needed to collect over 800 pounds of samples, why couldn’t they land astronauts? It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to believe one thing is possible while doubting the other. Given the two possibilities, the only one that is supported by evidence is that astronauts landed on the moon. Not to mention what happens if the Russians/Japanese/Chinese/Indians put something equivalent to the LRO in orbit of the moon and image the remains of these sample collecting missions in locations that don't tally with Apollo? It's a basic problem with the hoax theory, it wouldn't just have to fool people in 1969 but in 1999, and 2009, and 2019, etc... The Japanese Kaguya mission has already imaged the Apollo 15 (and I think one other) site.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 6:49:41 GMT -4
I wouldn't dis the EF itself. John Simkin is extremely fair, not wanting to silence anyone. It may not fit in with our standards of decorum, but he provides a forum for anyone who cares to speak... within the rules (stand fast Jack White). I don't agree with John's stance, nor his views, but I will stand up and defend his conduct at all times. he believes that everyone should be able to express their views as along as they conform to a basic sense of decency. He has never been anything but fair, and I'll stand by him for that. What's the quote? "I disagree with your views but I will fight to the death for your right to express them". I agree. btw I think it was Voltaire but I'm probably wrong. My point was that this would have been a good "showcase" for the EF and it would attract others and lurkers into the EF where they could potentially learn about other stuff. I think they are missing an opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 4:19:34 GMT -4
I think the real loser in this issue is the Education Forum.
Here is a chance to have an educational debate, properly conducted, on a subject that would be of interest to a number of parties and may increase the credibility of the Education Forum itself.
On the other hand if the EF is just seen as a vehicle for folks to just post their drivel and refuse to accept challenge to it, then it doesn't deserve its title.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 4:07:42 GMT -4
Fendell was the guy in Mission Control who remotely operated the Lunar Rover camera to film the EVAs on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Makes sense then But what are the greatest reasons why the missions were not filmed in a studio and were real? Heres a few - The motion of the Astronauts is consistent with being in a vacuum (ballistic trajectories of all objects, dust, flag oscillations, etc). The motion of the astronauts is consistent with moon gravity (simply filming it on earth then slowing down the film to make it look like they are on the moon is not sustainable, as can be demonstrated by viewing many hours of footage speeded up). The results are just not consistent. The shadows of the astros and equipment move at a completely different speed than they would on earth. See other thread. Also, there is only ever one single shadow seen at all times. If it was shot in a studio then it would have been exceptionally difficult to produce a single shadow over the whole set. The area covered by the astros is so large it would have needed a massive vacuum studio, for which there is no evidence of existence. There is probably more but thats my quick summary for you.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 3:42:59 GMT -4
and just how precisely are these small cubes manufactured? What are the tolerances? Could anything that small return a signal along a line a quarter of a million miles long - half a million round trip? The tiniest error and the reflection would arrive in the next state. Well I tried a simple google search on that. The results? By result 3 i had: A full optical explanation of the operation of corner cube reflectors. Even a list of their applications on earth. Why could you not do this basic research? ETA: And I shortly had tolerance values, effective angles, and all manner of other data. Do you have an objection to google? rodin you seem to thein that retroreflectors won't work, despite quite simple scientific explanation that they do. Noting that the Russians also have retroreflectors on the moon, are they also in on the scam? And how do you explain that the laser signals sent there, to this day, still return a reflected signal from the locations on the moon that they were placed in by Apollo and the Russians. Are you saying that the staff manning these sites are also lying? Please explain.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 19, 2010 18:19:26 GMT -4
I'll take 5.
The reason they took 6 days to get back was, as you susprected, that the explosion occurred during the trans-lunar phase of the Project, i.e. they were already out of earth orbit and on the way to the moon.
They could have turned round and returned quickly, but there was a fear that the explosion may have damaged the CM rocket and therefore firing it may have blown the whole ship to pieces.
So they adopted a slingshot trajectory, by continuing on their current trajectory to the moon, and using the moons gravity to return the ship to earth without having to burn the CM engines.
I beleive they are arguing to this day whether they made the right decision, but the outcome was a success so there you go.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 19, 2010 17:55:54 GMT -4
Rodin, I think it's telling that, regardless of the construction date for the SPF vacuum chamber, you haven't quite gotten a hold of the idea that it is still whole orders of magnitude too small to encompass even the A11 lunar excursions (with ancillary bits and bobs like a sound-stage and a film crew), never mind any of the other five landings. I mean, it would make a pretty good airlock for a sound-stage that was big enough, but that would also require it to have a door that big on the other side too. Umm...if the moon hoax was filmed in an unfeasibly large vacuum chamber, what happens to the "A15 flag waving because the astronaut caused a draft" claim? ETA: You cannot have it both ways without jumping through some very strange mental hoops. I love the "it was shot in a vacuum but the flag moved due to air movement" one. Its one of my favourites.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 19, 2010 16:48:58 GMT -4
and just how precisely are these small cubes manufactured? What are the tolerances? Could anything that small return a signal along a line a quarter of a million miles long - half a million round trip? The tiniest error and the reflection would arrive in the next state. This is not secret knowledge, thirty seconds with Google would have given you all the information you needed: www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/lrrr.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experimentYou don't bother doing any research Rodin but you keep advancing one foolish HB notion after another and expect them to be taken seriously, rodin, now that you know what the retroreflectors are, and you know there are three from Apollo and a couple from the Russian missions and that these have been in regular use to this day. Can you explain how they got there?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 18, 2010 18:47:28 GMT -4
rodins film director knowledge appears to be a bit weak. He claimed on DIF that Stanley Kubrick created the LRO photos. Now of course using rodins logic, Kubrick "could have" taken the LRO photos. All that is required is for Kubrick to be resurrected from his grave then sent into lunar orbit in the LRO. But I think its a bit rotten to ressurect a famous director then shove him into lunar orbit for a year. I hope they gave him some food.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 18, 2010 10:17:11 GMT -4
Once again, you cast doubt on an aspect of Apollo while admitting you don't know much about it. Do you have any idea how silly that makes you look? Here's an idea - why don't you do some research and then come to a conclusion. rodin has been asked a number of times both on here and on DIF to do the ground work first then conclude but he prefers to jump straight to the conclusion. This will lead to failure but at least he is being polite about it.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 18, 2010 9:40:21 GMT -4
The Cold War itself was a total hoax - of this I am sure This has to be one of the more remarkable statements ever made in a discussion about the alleged Apollo moon hoax. Or any other discussion, for that matter. Just out of curiosity, do you mind if I ask you your age? Were you alive and aware of world events during any part of the Cold War - by which I mean the period running from approximately 1945 until 1989? And while you are at it, would you like to buy my bit of the Berlin Wall? I bought it when I was there in the early '90s but now that the wall didn't exist it has no value to me.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 18, 2010 6:09:58 GMT -4
Can I suggest this thread is done now?
rodin has not proved the jump was done with wires. Far from it.
His final statement seems to be that it "could" have been done with wires, despite the lack of any evidence to support that.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 17, 2010 11:04:11 GMT -4
Try to be polite to rodin. Unlike many hb's (especially at DIF) he's bothered to analyze the data and present products of his work. He should be encouraged not bulllied. He's breaking out of the simplistic DIF "Apollo was a disney-zionist hoax" nonsense and should be commended for his hard work and willingness to engage with people here. You know AH has a reputation for chewing HB's up and spitting them out. Many have misinterpreted this to mean that AH bans anyone who actually "shows up with proof you can't dismiss." Seriously. Rocky/cosmored has spread it around, as have others. I've disagreed with rodin on many subjects but I admire his willingness to "fill his boots" and do real work in pursuit of his theory. He's unusual at DIF in this regard. I also have been glad to see that he can carry on his conversation here in a different mode than the DIF standard - over there the mods are very loose and there is no language censoring. It gets a bit rough-and-tumble, but rodin has been very serious and even-keel while he's been here. AG out. Fair enough - the fact that he has come over here to debate is a good thing. I see his DIF thread has been taken over by the extreme fringe of the HB community! Anyway, I do maintain that rodin will be more effective in his challenges if he actually studies Apollo with an open mind for a few months, gets to know the issues and status of previously debunked claims, then he can post with a bit more authority. However - he claimed on DIF that the LRO photos were taken by Stanley Kubrick which exposes a certain lack of basic research which does expose him to a bit of ridicule.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 17, 2010 9:28:41 GMT -4
Why not educate yourself about Apollo first. Go immerse yourself in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal for a couple of months and then come back with some questions. Seconded. Go and learn about Apollo then come back with questions. Sensible questions and challenges will be welcome. You may even enjoy it. And don't forget to explain the cores, once you find out what they are.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 17, 2010 4:51:48 GMT -4
rodin - you claim the moon rocks are faked. The only basis you have is the von Braun visit to Antartica, which is a matter of public record.
How do you explain the cores? I expect you don't know about these because you don't do much research up front - you just make an unfounded claim from something you have seen on a CT website then you dig yourself into a hole once it is shown that you know a lot less about things than you claim.
Do your research, become more knowledgeable about Apollo, then if you have questions post them and others will be happy to help. You may be surprised at what interesting stuff you can learn.
|
|