|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 21:34:12 GMT -4
The Mythbusters tried several methods, including running at 1/2 speed, to duplicate the Apollo footage, and all of them had telltale problems that gave the game away. One prominent grandson of the hoax theory haughtily claimed, after the show aired, that the real theory is that a combination of slow motion and wire supports were used. I'd never heard that claim before, though it's possible I missed it, but more importantly it doesn't make sense. It's just another example of moving the goal posts. The only way to make ballistic objects on (above) the earth mimic motion in lunar gravity is to change the film speed by a ratio of sqrt(6). Any other ratio simply wouldn't work. So once you've done that, what good are wire supports? Applying forces to objects that are supposed to be in ballistic motion will simply make them move non-ballistically. And applying forces to some supposedly ballistic objects but not others will make them move differently when they should be moving the same.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 5:56:57 GMT -4
They seem to do a lot of stuff off the cuff, but sometimes I think they know much more than they let on. A lot of myths can be easily dispatched with elementary physics and math that they (or their researchers) almost certainly have already worked out, if for no reason than to satisfy their insurance company.
But they go ahead and do the experiments anyway as if they don't know what will happen. Especially when they include explosions, crashes or gunfire.
The closest anybody recently came to letting the cat out of the bag was during the "plane on the conveyor belt" episode. Jamie commented to the camera that he couldn't believe they were actually having to test such a stupid myth.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 1:12:05 GMT -4
Thanks much for the pointer. I missed this when it originally occurred, and so I'm reading it now. I've added a few questions of my own to that thread. If it was not formally established that Thomas Baron committed suicide, I will be more than happy to retract that and avoid repeating it in the future. It did seem quite odd that Baron would kill his family along with himself even if he were suicidal. Many if not most suicides have the remaining presence of mind to avoid injury to others in the process (e.g., people who poison themselves with gas have been known to put up warning signs for rescue personnel) except when they blame those others for their problems. And there's certainly no reason for Baron to have blamed his family for North American's problems.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 1:01:58 GMT -4
From my experience as an investigator and as an aerospace engineer, here are my observations on Baron's performance as reported in his testimony. [much fascinating stuff follows...] I'm an engineer, but not a forensic engineer. Nor does the nature of my work (applied research in communications) put me in a position where a mistake would likely cost someone's life or destroy a great deal of property. And I'm pretty grateful for that... But I do have a question for Jay. You said it was a "red flag" that Baron constantly argued with the engineers over his discrepancy reports. And maybe that did reflect poorly on Baron if he frequently cited things that simply weren't significant. But if he cited so many insignificant things, why did they qualify as safety violations in the first place? I assume the engineers and their managers, not the safety inspectors, established those safety policies and Baron accurately cited one or more of them in each of his discrepancy reports. (I.e., he didn't just make up his own rules, or wildly misinterpret the official ones.) I know you can't completely write out personal judgment, but didn't the engineers share some of the blame for writing their policies so broadly? Isn't it their job to figure out exactly what does and doesn't matter to safety? As you said, the engineers are in a far better position to do this than a safety inspector who may not have either an engineering background or an appreciation of the larger issues that drive safety.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 17, 2010 0:39:41 GMT -4
Unfortunately that indirection is the problem in this case. An affidavit based substantially on reports provided by others is inadmissible hearsay in a legal context such as testimony before Congress. I know that there are rules that severely limit the use of hearsay in trial courts, but is this true for Congress? Congress has the power to conduct investigations (and issue subpoenas, if they desire) in support of their role to draft and pass legislation. Certain constitutional rules still apply, such as the right of witnesses against compulsory self-incrimination. But all the usual rules of a trial court cannot apply to a Congressional investigation, because they're not a trial court. The Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress from acting as a trial court with the very specific and limited exception of the Senate hearing an impeachment case. And both houses of Congress are explicitly permitted to set their own rules. Now any wise legislature would do well to avoid relying on hearsay and to seek original sources for any material information in an investigation, but few people will accuse Congress of habitual wisdom...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 20:14:42 GMT -4
Adam needs to be aware that Jarrah will quote-mine any response sent to him and post it in a video, which he will spin any way he wants Sure. And I understand. But I still can't help but rub my hands at the prospect of Adam making some sort of reply that draws on his considerably greater resources: his research staff, his producers, and most of all his sense of humor. I've noticed that crackpots and conspiracy theorists invariably share a number of traits. Obsessiveness is obviously one. But haven't you noticed that they rarely exhibit any real sense of humor? I don't really count their bitterly sarcastic put-downs of their opponents; I'm thinking more of the kind of gentle playfulness and self-deprecating humor common to intelligent, self-confident people. Adam Savage is an excellent example of what the crackpots lack. Though I'm sure it's a very consciously honed part of his on-screen persona, he probably draws it from his own personality. Jamie Hyneman invited him to join Mythbusters precisely because he knew he needed someone to contrast sharply with his own personality. It's unlikely that the show would have succeeded without the entertainment value of the "double act" they play with each other.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 19:56:17 GMT -4
Usually I like the Australian accent, but I can never get past that twangy voice - so intent on it's own idiocy; so I'm afraid I didn't even watch it. Same here! I have quite a few Aussie colleagues and I love to visit the place - but I'd rather listen to fingernails on a chalkboard than Jarrah White's voice. There's just something about that grating tone...so smug...so pompous...and so utterly clueless...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 19:27:44 GMT -4
Bassett and See's accident was caused by bad weather Bad weather and bad judgment.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 19:24:39 GMT -4
HBs are determined to make these accidents sound sinister, but that's not realistic. Bassett and See's accident was caused by bad weather and Freeman's accident was caused by a bird strike. How people can look at these circumstances and think "assassination" is beyond me. Or take Thomas Baron's suicide: he drove himself and his family onto railroad tracks and was hit by a train. The loopier CTs claim that he was murdered by NASA. How NASA induced Baron to drive his car onto the railroad tracks is something they never explain. Did they use a mind control ray? Baron took his job as a safety inspector very seriously, probably beyond-mentally-healthy seriously. Because of his blizzard of safety complaints before the Apollo 1 fire, many of which had nothing to do with it, he was invited to testify to Congress. By all accounts he was openly despondent. His death was a tragedy but one hardly needs to invoke a NASA "rub out" to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 17:33:42 GMT -4
Its completely obvious that Jarrah had hidden his camera behind something. I didn't say that. I think it likely, but I can't be sure. Plenty of others seem to think so, though. The real question is "what to do about Jarrah White"? The man has made hundreds of videos under just his "WhiteJarrah" Youtube account (393 at last count). Most but not all deal with his belief that Apollo was a massive hoax. And as "LunarOrbit" said, he is now entering Bart Sibrel territory, camera-ambushing celebrities associated with Apollo in the public eye. For a young man, he seems to draw on some remarkable resources. He lives in Australia, but some of his "Apollo hoax" videos show him in the United States, such as this one in Las Vegas and some I've seen from the National Air & Space Museum. I don't know how much time he spends producing his videos but it must be substantial. What really bothers me about Jarrah White is not so much that he spreads huge amounts of false information about the Apollo program (though that does bother me a lot) but in so doing libels and slanders the many people who worked on that program. That's much worse. Now I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say that what he does and says actually falls within the legal definitions of libel and slander, but he certainly falls into my layman's interpretation of those terms even when his victims are "public figures" under US precedent, such as New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case that (properly, in my opinion) set the bar very high for a public figure to prevail in a libel case. The Sullivan case set the "actual malice" standard for such cases: the plaintiff has to show that the defendant knew his statements to be false, or acted with reckless disregard of whether they're true or false. In my opinion, at least, most of what Jarrah says falls well within these two areas though of course only an actual court trial could make that determination. But legal details aside, there's no question that what Jarrah White says is false and deliberately intended to destroy the reputations of a very large number of talented, motivated and highly accomplished scientists, engineers and others who worked on the Apollo program. He directly, repeatedly and falsely claims that these hundreds of thousands of people were either dupes of a massive conspiracy or direct, willing participants. And he does so in an attempt to puff himself into a minor celebrity among his small group of fans. Quite contemptible, actually.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 5:18:33 GMT -4
Exactly... that's why I sent Adam and email with the link to the video and mentioned that he was videoed without his knowledge and that his image is now being used to propagate - albeit in an indirect way - the Hoax myth... Thanks. It's his choice whether to respond, but I sure hope he does. And if he does, I think Adam's self-deprecating sense of humor will serve him very well. Conversely, if there's one thing an obsessed crackpot does not have, it's a sense of humor. Especially about himself.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 3:27:40 GMT -4
BTW, I'll only give out the information to the production company for the purposes of a rebuttal; individuals need not ask me for the address as I will not supply it to them. That's fine. I just think Adam (and his colleagues) should know that he's being used in this way, so they can decide whether to respond. It wasn't at all clear that Adam knew he was being taped; there were some "tee hee" type comments that implied Jarrah was using a hidden camera. Even in a public forum I consider that unethical. It certainly got me angry just watching it. I can understand the "just ignore him" sentiment. On the other hand, he certainly seems to be trying to provoke a reaction with this video, and I doubt this will be his last try. Jarrah has always preferred to stay in his cozy little walled garden at Youtube where he can bask in the attention of his adoring group of fans and not have to face any real opposition. I think he knows what would happen if he ever had to defend himself in a mainstream forum against people who actually know what they're talking about. I'm sure Adam Savage, like anyone in the public eye, has had to develop a pretty thick skin. Even so, it might prove very satisfying to swat one particularly annoying mosquito.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 0:36:33 GMT -4
I think the Mythbusters should revisit the Apollo "hoax". Their wonderful episode should have laid it to rest, but some people just won't give up. At the recent Amazing Meeting, Australian hoax advocate Jarrah White ambushed Adam Savage with a camera to ask if he knew that two separate experiments had managed to get laser returns directly off the lunar surface before the Apollo program. Adam said he hadn't. It's all here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxzQXxo6JlMWhite is actually correct but irrelevant. And he knows it. Unable to address the real issue, he attacks a straw man. The issue is whether Apache Point, not some other laser, can receive a return from the moon without a lunar reflector. The answer to that question is 'no', just as demonstrated in the show when they shot both the Apollo 15 site and the lunar highlands. Apache Point is specifically designed to work with a reflector. Its laser pulses are far shorter and much less energetic than those in the 1962 MIT "Project LunaSee" experiment: 90 picoseconds at 115 millijoules/pulse vs half millisecond pulses carrying a whopping 50 joules each. The Apache Point laser develops an impressive-sounding peak power of 1.3 gigawatts, but only briefly; in 90 picoseconds light travels only 27 millimeters! Apache Point generates 20 pulses per second for an average power of only 0.115 * 20 = 2.3 watts. And it's average power (total energy or photon count, actually), not peak power, that determines detectability. Why such short pulses? Because MIT's goal in 1962 was just to bounce their laser off the moon to show it can be done. Apache Point regularly measures the earth-moon distance to millimeter accuracy to test a variety of scientific theories. This brings up more proof that Apache Point detected a reflector at the Apollo 15 site. The beam is kilometers wide when it reaches the moon's irregular surface, but the growing peak on the computer screen showed a very short return roughly a nanosecond wide. There must be a physically small and highly reflective object in that beam. Jarrah White has been informed of all these facts but ignores them as counter to his preferred view of the world. He produces hundreds of Youtube videos arguing that Apollo was a massive hoax. In doing so, he implicitly and falsely labels as liars many honest, hard working and accomplished engineers and scientists, such as the staff of the Apache Point Observatory. Jarrah White calls himself the "grandson of the Apollo conspiracy theory". Now he's taken on the Mythbusters. I'd love to see you accept the challenge and give him more than he bargained for.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 16, 2010 0:34:27 GMT -4
The mortality rate for astronauts was pretty high too. How many people even know the following names:
Elliott See Charles Bassett Clifton Williams Ted Freeman
All were NASA astronauts killed in T-38 accidents before they could fly in space for the first time.
The only non-flying astronaut generally known to the American public was Roger Chafee, by dint of having died in the Apollo 1 fire. This is why the accusation that the fire was deliberate murder is not only outrageously offensive, but utterly stupid as well. The fire became huge news and triggered a Congressional investigation that very nearly led to the cancellation of the entire Apollo program. This is not exactly the kind of thing that the supposed NASA "conspirators" would be willing to risk when experience had already shown that astronauts could die in jet crashes and the public would, at most, shrug.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 14, 2010 19:14:13 GMT -4
Thanks! Maybe the vernier engines give better roll (and attitude) control before the engine starts? As I recall, during at least one of the past Falcon 1 launches the nozzle extension of the second stage impacted the upper skirt of the first stage during separation. They scraped quite hard. If attitude control depended on vectoring the turbopump exhaust of the upper stage, that meant no attitude control until the upper stage was up and running. Hence the staging collision.
In general, attitude control of the upper stage in those earlier launches seemed poor. It wandered all over the place, compared to Delta-II footage that showed a rock-steady attitude during second stage burn with only very slow changes.
|
|