|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 18, 2011 18:10:39 GMT -4
This might be a dumb question, but I was thinking about the slow motion film theory today. Whether Apollo was hoax or not (I believe it was not hoaxed), the film was recorded using a camera at x FPS. If it was slowed down, it would not be too difficult to measure the time between successive frames and determine the new frame rate of the slowed down film (y FPS). Would y stick out like a sore thumb to anyone with any degree of expertise? Would it not be odd that y might be fractional or a rate that is not used in any known video technology? This is not my field, but I would have thought such an analysis would have blown apart the argument. As I said, this is probably a dumb question. If it is, then I'll....
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 18, 2011 14:13:59 GMT -4
Charming, to say the least. Exactly. That incident and the attack on Jay at Yahoo forums triggered a lot of satire and general caricature aimed directly at the HB fraternity. There were certainly no accusations of criminal activity. Needless to say they did not react well to themsleves being humoured, and it has resulted in over 60 DMCA notices. We can debate whether this is an appropraite way to respond to their attacks on others or not. I am sure people with have split views. The point is that the HBs deal in accusations, but have double standards when they are the butt of the joke. They should be reminded of this when they are trumpeting the truth in their 'just' cause against 'evil.' They are not such a virtuous lot, and some of them need to take a hard look in the mirror.
|
|
|
Perigee
Aug 17, 2011 19:48:37 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 17, 2011 19:48:37 GMT -4
They simply worked differently than we do. In my opinion these guys used their brains more. I agree. They also did hard physical yards too. As a physicist I am always amazed by the early pioneers of modern particle physics. My lecturer for 2nd year nuclear physics was describing his doctoral research (proton interactions) and the times he spent patiently sat on top of a bubble chamber recording events and then doing the hard computations. Nowadays, the data would be captured digitally and processed using computers. Luckily there are still enough practitioners of those old methods around to tell us when our computers get the wrong answersYes, rubbish in rubbish out. A perennial bug bear of mine when I ask a modeler to run a simulation and he gives me an answer that I know does not make sense. I do wonder about the current generation, but then I am probably getting old. It irks me that young graduates run models and do not think about the outputs and what they mean. They see a number and think 'the model said so, it must be right.' My impression was that Apollo was considered high enough priority that it could legitimately use leading-edge military assets.Oh to have been part of it. I was still a babe in arms when Apollo 14 was making its flight, and probably just out of nappies by the time Apollo 17 left the moon. I cannot possibly imagine what it would have been like to work on the Apollo. The culture that had to be instilled to achieve the final goal. It amazes me that they did it in the time available. It was more than a technical achievement - it was a lesson in project management (most of the time). As you note, the hoax community on YouTube seems to be a hotbed of anti-government sentiment.If there is an acceptable face of the moon hoax theory it was Kaysing. While he lied and told untruths that are hard to forgive, I think he grew up in a hotbed of political distrust during the Cold War. I don't see him as a villain par se. He seemed like a kindly old man who wanted to tell tall tales. Having spent some time at YouTube, my experience is that the HB is very much tied in with distrust of government and just about every conspiracy that is doing the rounds. I tend to look at the positives and how it shows that small community, cozy at their walled gardens, to be perceived by the outside world. For my way of thinking, if I can see that positive light, then I can accept they are probably not doing their cause any favours. In an odd sort of way, I think that he-who-shall-not-be-named is actually betraying Kaysing. For example, while Kaysing tried to sue Lovell (a cheap trick), I think he was generally content with having his voice heard and did not act with the vitriol that the YT community show. Regardless of your moral views on the military, from an engineering perspective they have a very good track record of handling high-risk technologies.Thankfully. Yes, unavoidably so. The civilian space program occasionally served as cover for covert missions, although we know of only one such instance in Apollo (Project Chapel Bell).A Google search on Chapel Bell brings up seismic experiments. I am aware of such experiments, but not that they were called Chapel Bell. What was Chapel Bell? It's no accident that after the LM team perfected chemical milling, that technique was used on the F-14 produced by the same team at the same company.An example of a technique or process that has been used elsewhere. The sad part is while the HB community are anti-NASA, they forget their daily lives are touched by the legacy of Apollo and the exploitation of NASA research. It is this that drives me to despair more than anything. I am afraid that the Internet generation are taking a grip, and their attitudes are symptomatic of our throw away society. Children are growing up fast in a consumer world without time to pause, and their expectations as adults are high. There are those that have their expectations dashed, and fall into less productive ventures such as conspiracism, often for their five minutes of fame. I think we have seen an examples of consumer society in the UK with recent looting. I feel that conspiracism is another way that younger people express themselves, and are probably those that fell along the wayside at some academic level. He-who-shall-not-be-named clearly has an interest in space and science, but did not make the grade. I have reached the conclusion that the hoax theory is his way of achieving recognition as an expert. For them the battle is political, so they assume our defense of NASA is just as politically motivated as their attack on it. Defense, what is that word? ;D This is why they fail. I do not defend NASA or Apollo. I defend the people that made it possible, and find their denigration a loathsome act. Apollo could have been a deep sea voyage to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, setting up under water stations to observe deep ocean life. The fact it was a moon landing achieved by the work of NASA and their contractors has no bearing on my feelings towards the HB community. In their fantasy world they're the top-notch sleuths who cracked the Apollo conspiracy.Or, as discussed, they are disenchanted and feel their lot is a rotten lot. They are angry with their lack of achievement, and use the hoax as a platform to gain peer recognition. A prime example is Ralph Rene. I think he was just an insecure man who didn't make the grade. His alternative theories were a reaction to his own failings, and he took on the academic world. I certainly think he was paranoid, but whether he had paranoid tendencies from the beginning, or he became paranoid through his continued activities, I could not possibly say. Maybe this is simplistic, but we are all descended from primates and our psychology and behaviour still has echoes from that time. Within his world, he-who-shall-not-be-named is top of the tree. His reaction toward you and others is the young chimp making an attack on the alpha male. He just doesn't learn that he will always get slapped down. His recent behaviour is telling, and it shows his angry disdain for those on the higher branches. He'll get slapped down again, and come back for more. It can be quite entertaining when couched in those terms. I fear it's only going to be a matter of time before they style someone as a villain to the point where he takes legal action.I don't understand what there is to fear. I hope someone does take legal action for defamation. I'd like to see a few individuals account for their behaviour, especially those that cry defamation, slander and libel and have no sense of what actually constitutes those acts. But then those prepared to commit perjury and fraud probably don't care much for the law.
|
|
|
Perigee
Aug 16, 2011 21:09:23 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 21:09:23 GMT -4
Thank you for a such a comprehensive reply. It is hard to reply in full at this time in the morning, since I do have to go to bed soon. I will pick up the rest tomorrow out of courtesy. It was good to hear your opinion regarding the direction of technology transfer, given your first hand experience in the industry. In my world, exploitation of research is an important aspect. The primary objective of any research is to obviously meet a specific goal or objective. However, when a research proposal is submitted as part of a program(me) of work, the research bids that meet the primary goal and have clear transferable science routes will have less problem being approved. The development of new techniques, models or applied technologies all come under the remit of transferable science. As for the political/military perspectives that the HB fraternity place on Apollo; it seems that the HBs base their agenda on hatred of government/authority. I would not be surprised if some of their backlash is due to educational experiences, and they choose to vent their aggression on those that have achieved more. I do wonder if some of it comes down to jealousy. I always look upon the Apollo program(me) as a scientific project. I was carrying out educational outreach duties about 2 months ago, and a 10 year old asked me why JFK decided to land men on the moon. Although in easier words, I replied: It was about embracing the skills of a nation to achieve something great, while creating an enduring economic, historical and academic legacy. JFK wanted to do it so America could prove to themselves as a nation that they could do it, and be proud of their achievement. I got a lot of thanks of the teachers after for highlighting the importance of the events some 40 years later. I hope that it still inspires. It is such a shame that the HBs turn it into part of their political manifesto and fail to see the longer term benefits of Apollo and the impact on their daily lives (technology transfer again). You won't get a penny from the U.S. government until you learn to spell "check" and "program." They should have covered that in the CIA orientation. Very good Actually, I think you have me handcuffed and into the back of the wagon with paycheck. Gillian can help out with this one, but I think paycheck is used by the US and British. Cheque has a very distinctive meaning in the UK. However, program is something I watch on TV, while programme is a set of coordinated events or items intended to deliver a final coherent output. I'm sure the CIA will beat it out of me eventually.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 18:48:42 GMT -4
The Saturn V carried ballast in place of the lunar module. What a waste. But I guess it was necessary. Very interesting. Here's a link to the Lunar Module Test Article. This link shows the LMTA in situ.
|
|
|
Perigee
Aug 16, 2011 17:34:55 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 17:34:55 GMT -4
However the TPS design for Apollo borrowed heavily from MIRV designs in nuclear weaponeering, so there was already a wealth of empirical data on the performance of those systems. The CM did not require as much TPS testing as a clean-sheet design would have suggested. Thanks for the information. That must be one impressive wind tunnel at Ames. When all is considered, Apollo is even more impressive when one places it into full perspective, and considers that the engineers of the day did not have the computing power and models of our modern era. I thought this was the case with Apollo and MIRV. My memory is telling me that ka9q discussed this with me too. I guess that provokes a different question: How much of Apollo was about researching nuclear warhead vehicles, and how much was taken from the performance of those vehicles? The reason I ask is that some HBs are not able to divorce NASA and the military. I understand there is a cross over, but that's the nature of government organisation. If I am correct, the US move into the space race exploited existing nuclear vehicles rather than the other way around. However, I guess that ICBM research and the Apollo programme were probably symbiotic to a degree, with some overlap in parts. But I would contend that Apollo was still primarily a scientific programme. It just seems such a shame that the HB community use their anger towards military enterprise to diminish a wonderful technical achievement. It is a connection that I cannot understand, and their anger seems to be quite fervent. From my experience of the HB community at YT, the hoax theorists are very anti-government and lack objectivity towards Apollo because of their anti-government stance. Take he-who-must-not-be-named and his attack on you at Yahoo forums. If I recall, he managed to drag the Iraq war into the discussion too, slandering you in the process. I'm not sure that the HBs understand that most of us are humble scientists/enigneers/enthusiasts who are not always happy with our governments either. According to the HB community, I'm a highly paid NASA/CIA shill that would do anything for my government, although I am not a US citizen, and I opposed the invasion of Iraq. A bizarre stance for a government agent. I'm still waiting to receive my pay cheque though - can you drop by the office for a word and sort it out for me
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 15:51:14 GMT -4
That little display should shine like a beacon in showing how far they'll stray from the path to silence their perceived critics. Anyone who believes their motives and tactics are pure, only needs to revisit this and other smear campaigns to realize otherwise. Exactly. There has been an effort at YouTube to dish out some of the same medicine that the HB community have dished out over the years. Some of it has been aimed to prove the HBs cannot handle the same treatment they dish out to others. It has been a bit of a social experiment at YouTube of late. I know that many here would probably not agree with this approach, and I respect those views. The Carly Simon incident seems quite a forgotten event when the HBs throw their rattles and accuse others of cyberharrasment and bullying. It seems that they can throw the mud, but don't like it being thrown back. The point has now been proven. I know one YT user was inspired by the attack on Jay at Yahoo forum and went on the assault to prove this point. The individual in question had false DMCAs filed against him in such a way to have his account terminated. I'm afraid what goes around comes around in this world. I also believe we should treat other people in the way we would like to be treated. The point was proven, the HB could sling the mud, but could not take it coming back the other way. I am afraid a few HBs need to be reminded of this when they are accusing people of crimes without a shred of evidence.
|
|
|
Perigee
Aug 16, 2011 15:30:16 GMT -4
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 15:30:16 GMT -4
According to NASA records, Apollo 11 reached a maximum entry velocity of only 36,277 ft/s because it was slowed down by the atmosphere. And it never reached perigee because it was overcome by drag and fell to Earth. Phew, thank goodness for that Seriously though, I recall discussing this with ka9q via PM. During the Apollo 13 film, the drama of reentry was described with the CM skipping off the Earth's atmosphere if too shallow, or burning up if too steep. The latter I can understand. I have two questions: (1) ka9q explained that the CM would not actually skip of the Earth's atmosphere like a stone, but simply pass straight through the thin uppor layers and out the other side. Is this this case? I ask this question not out of disbelief, but rather to share the information imparted to me by ka9q. (I think I have quoted you correctly ka9q - sorry if I have not, and please correct me if so). (2) How did the engineers determine the reentry corridor? That is, how did they work out the balance between needing to slow the CM down and the thermal load? Was it theoretical or experimental, or a mixture of both.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 15:18:45 GMT -4
Thanks for clarifying. I could have been more explicit in detailing the account of the Carly Simon incident. You are right, those undertones were injected by others (That's what I was implying when I said apparently).
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 14:42:08 GMT -4
'Do you think it is acceptable to accuse someone of being a paedophile without a shred of criminal evidence to support that accusation?' No. I do not. Not in anyway what so ever. Then maybe you can begin to understand svector's annoyance at he-who-shall-not-be-named. svector was subject to a campaign of hatred. Why? Because svector uploaded a video of his daughter playing soccer, and dubbed the film with a piece of music that apparently had undertones that alluded to intercourse with underage children. From that point, svector was attacked as being a paedophile by the HB community. I would like to add that svector even admitted to you in his postings that he probably should not have lashed out at Jarrah in the way he did. You missed that statement, and in your fervor, you have produced a video that attempts to publicly shame the man. Your interactions with svector are few. You ought to take a step back. I could write a small essay on the attacks that have been made on those that believe Apollo from a certain quarter. I for one got involved at YouTube, and began quite civilly. Within days I had users such as un4g1v3n1, straydog02, stalkervision, ptgard1, michaelstmark accuse me of the same crime. I was told by one HB that I was 'probably severley facially deformed and would not go out of my house.' Another suggested that my father sexually abused me. Do you think these things are right? (answer please) How about the attacks on Jay, Phil Plait, Adam Savage and the surviving astronauts? Is it no surprise to you that people sometimes lash out? (answer please) Why are some people considered less human than others, and why in your opinion should they demonstrate less fallibility? (answer please) I'm not condoning bad behavior from either side. I have sometimes stepped over the mark myself, and have been reined in by the likes of ka9q and others. I have even come to the defence of he-who-shall-not-be-named on a few occasions. By producing videos like this all you are doing is whipping up more hatred and venom towards svector. I am not sure you fully understand or comprehend what you are involved in. I predict that someone will get hurt as a result of conspiracism, or maybe even killed. Believe me, some of the behavior I have seen at YouTube suggests that some of the HBs are seriously ill. I can cite an example from only yesterday. You really do need to take a step back from this and understand the long history of the personalities involved before you begin this tardy attack on others. Grow up and think about what you are posting. I for one am getting weary of your antics. <edit: correction to ambiguous sentence>
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 14:18:37 GMT -4
Keeping within the theme I can see why Bill Kaysing is cast as Sauron, being the ultimate moonhoax villain. However, given he was a soft old kook who behaved like a grandfather telling stories from his rocking chair; could we just force Dr Evil into the storyline somewhere as a compromise. You know, inept, bit puddled and couldn't do evil if he tried. I'd cast Ralph Rene as an Orc. <edit: Referred to Ralph Rene by surname. This is a tradition reserved for those that have achieved academic recognition.>
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 16, 2011 13:21:38 GMT -4
Dear Vincent
I asked you a question in context of this video and svector. You have not answered it, along with several other questions I have asked you. So no, you have not answered all outstanding questions at this thread. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you missed them in youthful exuberance. This is my question to you:
'Do you think it is acceptable to accuse someone of being a paedophile without a shred of criminal evidence to support that accusation?'
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
I would like to point out something very obvious here to the HB lurkers. Vincent claims he has recanted, but even as a 'believer' he is being given a 'hard time' by members of this forum. Apollo believers are not simply slapped on the back at this board.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 14, 2011 17:48:09 GMT -4
Conspiracists, and other pseudo-intellectuals like creationists, use questions as weapons. I'm not so sure that the moon hoax proponents I have had the displeasure of interacting with actually ask questions. They usually want to force their view upon me, and then call me all the names under the sun since I won't subscribe to their world view. Most I have shared time with are too wrapped up in their own ego, have anger problems, or suffer with some form of delusion. Some have a combination of all of these traits.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 13, 2011 20:53:36 GMT -4
does seem to match at least one person I know. It might match he-whose-name-I-shall-not-mention, but in fairness he does not hide behind sock puppets. He's quite open about who he is, partly because of his enormous ego. Right. That's all I have to say on he-whose-name-I-shall-not-mention, since I have promised myself that I will not discuss him at this board any more.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Aug 13, 2011 18:30:48 GMT -4
I heard the other day some country wants to reintroduce unlimited test match cricket? The ICC are going to introduce a test championship. There is a proposal on the table that the final between the top two ranked sides in the world will be a timeless test. This means that there will still be a result if rain stops play. <edit: grammar>
|
|