|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 25, 2010 14:24:41 GMT -4
Ah ha! Now we know where all that Apollo "moon" footage was faked: in a secret American underground complex a few hundred km from the center of the earth! Great, you've given them a new idea now!!
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 21, 2010 13:16:29 GMT -4
Duane the dope smoker cannot engage in a debate without resorting to name calling, insulting behaviour, etc.? I'm not sure if dope has anything to do with the argument. I agree with the rest though. I have never encountered anyone with so much hatred because they believe something to be different. I think kaq9 has noticed that theorists simply have NO sense of humour. I shudder at the thought of living in their eutopian world. It would be like the killing fields of Pol Pot. Apparently White has a very selective sense of justice. There's something about that surname and selectivity.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 20, 2010 12:00:13 GMT -4
It's just like Rodin. If he can think of a way it might be faked, it is faked until someone else to proves him wrong. JW's satellite theory is right out of a book called 'How to Make C**p up a You Go Along.' If it was not for the people he was denigrating and insulting, it would be hysterical. I can kind of understand an individual being convinced by the radiation argument, or the blast crater argument or even caught out by the no stars argument. I find it hard to take when it is blatant story telling. This thread has turned into a bar conversation, as we sit and wait for Rodin to get back from the washroom.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 19, 2010 23:57:52 GMT -4
Luke, you should know better than to think that there's more to radiation than just "it goes all over the place and kills". Topher, you're on to me. I'm just a NASA shill, part of the network you see. I pray to the great reptilian Windley every night, and sacrifice fluffy kittens and puppy dogs to appease his anger and feed his lies. My favourite argument regarding radiation is that NASA don't release the data so how can we prove that astronauts could survive the belts. At which point I point out that: 'You use the same data as me to allegedly prove they could not, so how can you prove your theory if you don't have the correct data either?'
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 19, 2010 22:15:50 GMT -4
What annoyed me about that show was the inevitable conclusion. After spending days investigating some alleged UFO story and finding absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, the lead investigator would conclude that since they didn't find any evidence proving it wasn't a UFO that is still could have been a UFO. When I was in late teens and sitting my A-levels, the JFK conspiracy was all the rage. We had similar shows in the UK that really didn't present evidence for a conspiracy, but would still conclude that even if there was no evidence for a conspiracy, there still might have been one. I think the problem of conspiracy is going to get worse given the access to the Internet and TV junk. Kids get wrapped up in it, some grow up and leave it behind as a phase, some don't. I'm afraid given the information available nowadays, and many social factors, more and more will never move on and the numbers that believe will grow.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 19, 2010 20:56:55 GMT -4
You have to know how the quantity you're measuring relates to the phenomenon predicted in your model, or to the value you're interested in. I think this bit is worth repeating and repeating. It's essentially the same problem as those who argue that Explorer 1 discovered massive amounts of radiation in orbit based on the fact that the Geiger counters maxed out. They assume 'maxed out' means 'incredibly high levels', but utterly fail to consider what the maximum range of the instrument actually was. The Geiger counter is another good example of where the theorists create their model according to their own interpretation of how a Geiger counter works and what can be interpreted from such readings. I think it was Ralph Rene who in interview gave an 'impression' of a Geiger counter going 'up and up' and never coming back down, and his protege has given the same impression on radio too. Firstly, the 'impression' illustrates they simply do not possess the language of science, which makes me suspect their claims for a start. But more importantly, a Geiger counter can become saturated and take time to relax. So, in essence, a counter can continue to report radiation where there is none. If it moves to a new point of radiation before fully relaxed, then it would appear that the space in between first detection and final detection is also occupied by radiation. Then there are all the other niceties that the theorists ignore, such as the type of radiation the Geiger counter is responding to. I could have a Geiger counter in the next room, clicking away happily next to a pure alpha source, and feel quite safe sat here.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 20:14:36 GMT -4
And it is only in the 21st century we can start to use the data from Hiroshima & Nagasaki survivors to determine the long term effects of radiation exposure. And whether that data can be extrapolated for the Apollo astronauts would be a difficult job as these effects are related to long term stochastic effects rather than short term deterministic effects (I think that is the correct terminology). I really do wish the likes of Jarrah White and some of his cohorts would take a look at the NIST database, and then come back and tell me that the CM would have been breached by the millions upon millions of deadly particles they talk of.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 19:39:40 GMT -4
Excellent that you made it here Topher. I look forward to you working on some moon hoax work. I hope you do.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 16:31:53 GMT -4
Everyone else blames me for everything, so jump on the bandwagon. My gold fish died this morning. Thanks for that Jay. But the fact remains that he talks the talk, but clearly won't walk the walk. So, know we have quotes from Full Metal Jacket. Excellent. Maybe when Rodin turns up, we can adopt the style of Animal Mother and Joker in our interaction with him.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 15:22:16 GMT -4
Real historians develop judgment and skill in navigating the shifting and fragmentary landscape of available evidence. Good post Jay. One of the most impressive historical accounts ever made was that of the Eastern front during World War 2. Given the Soviet archives were virtually closed to the West, the picture painted by historians is remarkably accurate. Once the wall came down and the Soviet Bloc fell apart, a few new nuggets came out of the woodwork. In reality, those nuggets filled in some of the gaps that existed in what was already a remarkable account pieced together by historians. What I find amazing about the whole Apollo hoax theory, is quite often the answers are quite simple because the things that tell us the answers are well understood physical sciences with precise mathematical frameworks - much easier than piecing together history. It seems the art of the hoax theorist is to find something they cannot quite explain and then say it is common sense that it must be a fraud. The radiation argument is a good example of this, where it is simple to say that it must common sense that the astronauts could not survive because we only have to look at the Hiroshima survivors, or the Apollo missions occurred during a solar maximum. The real step, as we all know, is to actually understand what the particle flux is, understand that the particles that describe the flux have different energies, look up the materials we are interested in and perform the computation. Even a sanity check with back of cigarette packet calculations shows us that the hoax argument is on very thin ice. It seems that it is easier to hand wave and speculate rather than conduct the mathematics which will lead to the correct answer. That is why this 'wooden rock' is so important as it shows the hoax proponents have already decided it supports their theory, rather than actually working out if there is enough merit for it to support their theory in the first instance.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 14:17:00 GMT -4
Apparently, I'm "under surveillance". Cripes, if you are under surveillance, then I guess that means Jay and Lunar are being hunted down by the Crab People, and will be taken to the bowels of Earth for sacrifice to the Lizard Men. ;D Don't worry Jay and Lunar, all you need do is purchase an industrial sized crab cracker, and you'll be fine.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 13:57:35 GMT -4
Then again JW reads a flight plan and he gets a red carpet and fireworks show from his hanger-oners. Jarrah and 'reads' in the same sentence. I never thought I'd live to see that construct. I thought he got other people to do his reading given the hash he makes every time words are put in front of him. ;D There have been some very interesting scenarios put forward in this thread, each quite plausible. That is what sets us aside from the hoax crowd I guess. The ability to offer alternative reasons. I always laugh when the hoaxers crow about their critical reasoning skills. Yet it seems they have already decided that the wood is the damning evidence. Critical reasoning, my backside. Pre-conceived conclusions, deceit and dishonesty more like. I still think the fact that the sample is so much bigger than all the others that were presented points to a mix up. The card looks like it was an invite to an event rather than a label. The most obvious pointer is the colour of the rock. One would think that if the conspirators went to all the trouble of dressing the sound stage with grey rocks and dust, then they'd have gone to the trouble of getting a fake gift rock correct. I guess the parallel universe where the CTers live is something I'll never understand.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 13:12:12 GMT -4
What sort of person sends me e-mail, knowing who I am and what I do, and asks, "Why haven't you debunked me yet?" Yes, that does sound rather confrontational and throwing the gauntlet down.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 5:04:29 GMT -4
Rodin, it would be good if you could address these. I would rather see an attempt to reply with a bit of research rather than an attempt at death by Mod. Who knows, you might be on to something but you have to prove it. It means putting the effort in, showing due diligence and a correct approach. Getting banned does not do you any favours. Personally, I hope that Lunar Orbiter does not ban him, but just hides his posts until he has answered Jay's questions. It's a bit like managing a child. With respect to Jay, the questions are not rocket science. They are the basic tenets of reporting results that most undergrad and advanced high school students would also ask. I recall that when I was studying O-level physics (14-16), we got introduced to the basic ideas of estimating errors of measurement. By the time I was studying A-level (16-18) I was conducting basic analysis of experimental errors. The concept is straight forward enough. If Rodin fails to see it, then I, as a practicing physicist, cannot take his claims seriously.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 22:26:29 GMT -4
Either do science right, or don't do it at all. That has to be quote of the year. I simply cannot add to that sentiment.
|
|