|
Post by scooter on Jan 27, 2006 15:24:51 GMT -4
So you STILL haven't looked at the gamma ray thread (a few threads below this one, started by pepsi78) or are just ignoring it. Or if you have read it, where is the data wrong?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 27, 2006 12:04:36 GMT -4
"Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet the reflected sunlight from it's surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness of planet Earth. Anyone hovering above it's surface would be blinded by the light." Sam Colby's Apollo "Facts"
hmmmmm....what a piece of work he is. Thoughts from Stargazer on this?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 27, 2006 7:07:36 GMT -4
I rather despair at reaching Stargazer. His grasp of science is beyond weak; he seems both hostile and fearful towards it (and anything associated, like math). I do not believe that he will ever respond to or originate scientific arguments. Which is a problem, since this is largely a science-oriented board. I do not know if Stargazer is willing to use logic, but I'd like to give it a try. Otherwise, there is no basis left for discussion but pure emotion, and that form of debate is not what most of us come to this board for. It denigrates us, and does not advance the understanding of the lurkers either. Stargazer; one question, in an attempt to have at least one honest discussion (no matter how off the subject); is there anything that you consider yourself informed on? That you understand well and can discuss in detail? A computer operating system? A comic book? Bicycle maintenance? It would so ease my pain if just once I could see a question and an answer follow each other in reasonable fashion. No, I won't bite. so his answer to this question is no, I presume? That sounds about right...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 26, 2006 20:22:03 GMT -4
Nomuse, et al You are so correct. One thing I love about this forum is the learning that takes place. Folks research, point out one anothers misunderstandings or errors in computation, and such. The whole community prospers for it. When an HB comes in with fingers firmly planted in ears, the discussion is nondirectional, disjointed, and quickly becomes almost noise. Any logical discussion and rebuttal, point -counterpoint is virtually impossible. It takes two to tango, hard to do when one of the dancers is missing their legs. Do they really believe that the folks here, given a real honest piece of evidence pointing toward a hoax, wouldn't be all over it like white on rice?? This board would be on fire with the ensuing discussions, research findings, heated arguments even...but it would be two way communications. I'd really like to see a real debate, where both sides honestly communicate. It's so one sided, and the patience displayed by the "instructors" here is admirable, cannot count the number of posts I've deleted before hitting the send button. Thanks all, feeling much better now...send me the bill. Dave edit for screwed up grammar
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 26, 2006 16:07:59 GMT -4
In the past days, you have mentioned several sites that support the Apollo hoax claim. You have more recently mentioned that these sites do have inaccurate information, mixed in with their facts. If I may, could you please give us a few of these facts, and the knowledge and educational experience and/or research which you applied to establish them as facts and not just erroneous information? The sites you have brought to the table are interesting, and some quite well known. Some have been dissected piecemeal by space enthusiasts. Perhaps we are missing something here. You speak of "hellish radiation" and missing stars, but have yet to quantify the arguments you present....it's like calling 911 and saying theres a fire...without mentioning it's in a fireplace, or that it's actually a barbecue grill going outside.. We're lacking your context here, and are working hard to fill in the blanks in your statements. Specifics...we need numbers on how "hellish" is the radiation, and how "flimsy" is the provided protection. Seriously now, how many stars should be seen? If you are indeed amongst your peers (or even superior the the present company), then this interrogation should be a walk in the park, provided you have your supporting data in order. That data has been lacking thus far, your move.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 25, 2006 22:11:44 GMT -4
Meanwhile, why have no national publications such as Astronomy, Sky and Telescope etc ever decryed the hoax. You talk about a community that knows stellar photography! Surely they would immediately recognize the falsification of the images...the lack of stars. No, instead they have their own articles that debunk the hoax theories...why would that be? This gubmint conspiracy is getting pretty big, time to move to Norway or something! (no, wait, they saw the rocks too...uh oh)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 25, 2006 21:16:52 GMT -4
OK, real easy one for you here...
Go out and take a picture of some stars for us please. If not able, why not? Sirus is out this time of year, even some planets. Let us know what exposure settings work for you...lots of stars out this time of year.
Other than Hubble photos, virtually every starfield photo you look at was taken from Earth, many from back yards...do you know how? (hint: don't start with the lunar 1/250th sec, f8 setting)
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 25, 2006 21:05:45 GMT -4
Gazer, are you implying that the star positions seen from the Moon would be noticably different from here on Earth? (paralax). If so, could not this significant difference be accounted for in the creation of the set? Meanwhile, I have many, many star charts they could use to duplicate the starfield...they did have Kubrick's talent aboard, right?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 25, 2006 16:18:28 GMT -4
a rather carefully constructed diagram, to be sure...and inaccurate. It would seem they would need a flash attachment looking downsun...
Dave
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 24, 2006 23:28:52 GMT -4
Heck, I'll take MoonMan any day...at least he put forward propositions, however bizzare, to "support" his claim...this kid just blows smoke. Believe what you will, but there is a real world out there that functions because of our understanding of science. Just because you "don't believe" it (spelled don't understand it) doesn't make it less real. Going to the Moon wasn't impossible, it was just a big science and engineering challenge that a bunch of visionary and talented folks decided to take on...and accomplish. Simple as that,. The documentation is there, in excrutiating detail, and it won't go away with a wave of your hand. It's history, like the Cold War, doesn't disappear just because you refuse to acknowledge it. Apollo, and the huge people that made it happen, will live on forever...despite your pitiful efforts to denigrate it and tear it down. ...or, on the other hand, you could face reality, and perhaps lower youself to maybe learn a small thing or two from the smart folks assembled here...or is that too much to ask? Somehow, I suspect it is...
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 24, 2006 21:34:45 GMT -4
There's poison in my drinking water...lead, arsnic, pesticides, you name it...even...chlorine!!! How in God's name have I lived so long???
How much deadly radiation? How much IS deadly?Specifics please, dear physicist. Did you see the excellent radiation discussion in the other thread, in laymans' terms that you and I can understand, just how little radiation the Moon has? Did you know Dr Van Allen himself has debunked your claim of the belts' lethality in the Apollo mission context? He was the man who created the Explorer 1 experiment that discovered them! Sure there's deadly radiation out there...there's increased radiation at FL370 where the airliners fly. Theres deadly Van Allen belts frequented by the ISS crews on a regular basis.
Hazards, when studied and understood, are dealt with as needed. It's common sense engineering. You are missing the whole point here... intentionally it would seem.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 24, 2006 20:33:24 GMT -4
Appears 'Gazer is imploding, nothing left to offer. It's like watching a train wreck... Sad...really. I can only hope that someone in his future helps him find some direction and motivation to learn and perhaps become productive down the road. He may never again see an opportunity to learn so much so quickly as he (and so many others) had here. Dave
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 23, 2006 22:56:15 GMT -4
Just for the record, the CM was a bit more than a "thin aluminum skin", and this is where all the astronauts spent the significant majority of their time during the mission. Now the LM was built lighter with less material. Now, what precisely is the type and amount of radiation they needed protection from? I posted in another thread here a link to a NASA document from the Apollo days that discusses the then-known space environment hazards and their plans for dealing with them...very sensible read, in pretty close to layman's language...if you're interested. Dave
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 23, 2006 21:16:00 GMT -4
Listening to 'Gazer, sounds like we need to reorient the Compton GRO...gotta dang GRB'er in our backyard!! Duck and cover...er, nevermind, too late... Dave
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 20, 2006 10:30:52 GMT -4
"In recent years I have developed an attitude of believing nothing any more. I prefer trying to know. "
I just noticed this bit from 'Gazer...I find it quite amusing. No further comment is necessary.
Dave
|
|