|
Post by nomuse on Nov 19, 2011 2:16:52 GMT -4
I find it hard to believe that your truly think this is an Apollo lunar photo. Sure it is. It's from Apollo 19 which landed on the moon in 1975 No, no, it was obviously taken on or about the 13th of September, 1999. What? Since it is impossible for the Earth to grow, the Moon has to be out of place...
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 19, 2011 2:14:15 GMT -4
gillianren just my opinion to follow: that its not prickles or goo we don't really have a clue at the end of the day what "this" really is. We can look into the heavens and find stuff as far as we are able to see, and we can look into the small and find stuff as far as we can see, we can name it, classify it and dissect it. we can develop models of how processes seem to work, and build clever toys with that information. but when it's all said and done we are still in the middle with no real answers as to what "this" is. because "it" is unspeakable and unknowable so the fight over did we or did we not land on the moon matters not in the least, if it makes someone feel comfort to believe it, its OK and there will always be cause to bolster that opinion coming from the other side that believes just as strongly that its non-sense. the part that is amusing to me is how strongly a person will defend non-sense, it really becomes a religion. the landerites verses the hoaxerites the prickly people look at the details of the story and know it is true the gooey people look at the circumstantial evidence and know it can't be true And here it is again; the ultimate defense of the conspiracy believer. "But we can never really know anything." That's absolutely true. And has no bearing on the majority of human activities. Knowing that absolute truth is unachievable is great stuff for philosophy class, or while sitting on the dock drinking with your friends until late into the night, but... ...for building a machine, flying an aircraft, planning a life, or just stepping out your own front door, "close enough" is, well, CLOSE ENOUGH. The best tools we have to produce a knowledge that is trustworthy enough to stake our livelihoods and our lives on supports the truth of the Apollo Program. And even that niggling exception is no savior. Sure, it is just possible that science is not what we are taught, and there is a secret cabal flying UFO's around and working behind the scenes to create the illusion that the Apollo Project was real. But there is an EQUAL possibility that the elves did it. Or that Santa is real. Or that we are all caught in the Matrix and nothing is real. These are useless exercises. Unless the conspiracy believer can come up with a conspiracy that is actually slightly plausible -- or, at least, more plausible than assuming hyper-intelligent fourth-dimensional mice are running the world -- then their ultimate escape clause is quite meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 18:34:56 GMT -4
gillianren comets are big balls of electricity? never heard of that, sounds interesting That's the Electric Universe stuff you mentioned earlier. As I understand it, in the EU model there are giant currents running across the Universe. They become pinch points around stars (possibly all large masses?) and do work there -- aka heat up the (solid iron?) Sun until it glows in the familiar way. Comets are, in the EU model, something like dust bunnies; electrostatic accumulations of dust. As more and more dust is attracted to the surface, the comet grows until it becomes a planetismal, then a new planet. Why the EU people hate the idea of "dirty snowballs" I don't know. Maybe because their model (err...better to call it a "verbal outline") requires hydrogen to be made out of the charged particles of the intergalactic streams themselves. Or maybe they are more primitive then that; maybe they think a watery comet would short out. Basically, though, EU is a total failure as a science, and isn't even worth it as a fun idea to a science fiction writer, because there just isn't enough rigor in it. It is all just-so stories and "wouldn't it be possible that...?" and "Doesn't this look kind of like...?" It is IMPOSSIBLE to do any world-building using the theory. If you really really work at it you can construct a proper model of a star -- which then fails spectacularly to work. But the EU people ignore even that much of a test and go on to add more caveats and obscure bits of long-discredited physics they hope will allow their special pleading to continue. Heck..most EU people seem to have forgotten that one of their early heroes stated specifically in his work that there was some mysterious difference (amounting to several magnitudes) in scale between laboratory-scale plasma physics and his universe-spanning version. Even he, you see, could tell the math wasn't going to work out. Most of them sidestep this particular problem by simply never trying to do the math.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 17:44:03 GMT -4
trebor i will accept Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were just too busy to look out the window, because i have no idea how busy they really were. Although it really does not address the statement from Armstrong that only earth sun and moon could be seen, because if they looked out the window at the moon or earth, the stars should have been visible. if you keep going back to the sun was in my eyes... then i will have to pull up some fuzzy memories of X-15 pilots, that told about seeing a vista of stars (in the day time) when they attained altitude. and i am sure the cockpit of the ss is different than the capsule, actually does it not have more windows? hence more windows should probably cause more problems correct? By "fuzzy memories," you mean you aren't sure which conspiracy site said it, and you have no idea how to go about finding anything resembling acceptable documentation? Another bonus to hanging around this stuff for as long as some of us have is that we are pretty familiar with the material that appears in the major Apollo Denier sources -- familiar enough so we can often spot the argument and the source before the denier de jour has even gotten around to finishing their quote.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 17:12:00 GMT -4
twik my miss-take on posting the low res versions i actually had to go to NASA web site to get them to be posted. I had the impression from many conversations that most people on this site have previously examined images, and i assumed the preference would have been HR version, and that people would have retained the images. i stand corrected in the future i will be more than happy to comply and post the HR versions. or here is the link www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.htmlin case there is any doubt as to my uploads to the site. Or you can do what few Apollo Deniers ever do: Just post the correct call-out number. Most of us know how to navigate the various online galleries well enough to find the image in question IF we are given the number. Not to say a direct link isn't better. (And not to say that there are certain photographs either so popular or so over-used by the Apollo Deniers we know which one they are even from seeing a thumbnail scrap of a bad JPEG reduction.)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 16:56:32 GMT -4
honestly all you reall need to see is the one i posted but that is not the only one there is lots of evidence, check it out your self I would be very, very, very, very, very surprised if every regular on this forum had not seen a great many more pictures from Apollo than you have. Another Oh So Typical and I'm So Sick Of It Apollo Denier gambit; to assume they are the first person in Internet history to look at more than three pictures from Apollo, or watch a YouTube video. We don't doubt you because we haven't seen what you have. We doubt because you haven't seen what we have. You haven't even touched the surface of the massive pool of detailed and internally consistent evidence that is out there. I mean, seriously....this is a forum that explained to YOU (in great detail) about the construction of the landing probes, and you think you have something to teach THEM in re discovering there are pictures taken of the lunar soil during Apollo EVA's?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 16:40:39 GMT -4
The effect of off-axis force applied to a long thin object is well-known to anyone whose aim has been slightly off when hammering in a nail. Hit the nail hard and straight and it will drive straight into the surface. Hit it off-centre and the nail bends. Same nail, same surface, same force, just a difference in the direction the force is applied, and yet that one difference produces a markedly different (and annoying!) result. Nicely put. Implicit in my "soda straw" experiment as no hand is quite steady enough to apply perfectly aligned force, but I chose not to make that part of the analogy explicit.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 16:37:32 GMT -4
oh also just a question were the bars solid or hollow because if the lander were 2,000 pounds on the moon that is let me try to figure this out 666 pounds of pressure per bar that is being driven (this may be a mistake) straight into the soil. i just can't visualize how they crinkled like they did. Push a soda straw through a slab of modeling clay. The actual contact edge of the straw is quite fine enough to cut clay -- clay modeling tools generally have a larger cross-section and they work just fine. But the straw itself can not bear the force required. It will buckle. This is an experiment you can perform yourself.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 16:29:49 GMT -4
look the shuttle to the moon was very well explained yesterday it can't go to the moon, fuel limitaions, i get it No...more interesting than that. Which is why it is worth a look. Most of it comes down to design. Each craft is optimized towards a different task. Each craft would do a truly terrible job at the other's task. Understand this, and understand some of the optimizations, and you gain a better knowledge (and more respect) of how the Apollo systems were designed. As a for-instance; one of the big gotchas concerns re-entry. The Shuttle was designed as a re-useable orbital craft. Thus the thermal tiles; a system that with proper maintenance can let the craft re-enter multiple times. The Apollo CM was designed to return from the Moon. Much more velocity to get rid of, and even if they had intended to re-use the craft it wouldn't be economical. Thus the ablative heat shield, which is sacrificed during re-entry. The same trade-off appears in the form of the Shuttle Orbiter's tiny wings, and it's control surfaces; dead weight for the majority of the mission, but worth it not just for the final velocity bleed (which Apollo achieved with parachutes) but to be able to make a controlled landing in a specific location (instead of involving half the Pacific Fleet in recovery).
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 18, 2011 16:16:22 GMT -4
In case you have never seen this picture, I introduce it as a proof that Apollo pictures where staged. Hi ho, Silver, and away. When Duane Gish gets old and his knee joints give out, he'll be hiring Playdor to pull a chariot.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 1, 2011 12:48:56 GMT -4
No, right now you have a dubious homemade method whose flaws you have not addressed, and we have the full weight of an entire industry. Incorrect. There are no flaws in this method, it worked perfectly well when applied on Ares X-1, so don't be rediculous. The method is thereby validated. I just pulled my Grandfather's old watch out and had a look at it. The watch reads 10:40 According to both the clock on my computer and my cell phone (both updated automatically) the actual time is 9:47 By that I should perhaps assume my Grandfather's watch is running a little fast but is otherwise in fine shape for an old watch? Please think about that for a moment -- and consider how it applies to your case.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 1, 2011 12:40:13 GMT -4
Does JayUtah's link provide enough names for you? If so, are you ready to answer my original question? People see UFO:s all the time, and many of them can swear by God that they have even seen the aliens. Should we take their words for the truth? How can we be sure people didn't see a satellite? This kind of "witness evidence" isn't proof of anything. The only kind of evidence I would accept are concrete calculations based on concrete films, not just someone's "words of honor". You mean, a handful of observers with stories differing in many basic details, are equivalent to mass observations that generally agree in detail? According to you, then, the Elvis that is still alive and hiding in a trailer park in Jersey is just as well-established as the Elvis who headlined "Aloha from Hawaii."
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 31, 2011 20:09:58 GMT -4
Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average. You have been shown the way of how these calculations can be done, so what's the problem, go ahead and apply this model to as many rocket launches as you wish. Let me know if you encounter any problems with this method. Otherwise you are just talking. I wouldn't bother. I didn't even reach for the technical term "photogrammetry" when realizing something was deeply flawed. The basic word "perspective" was enough for me. You haven't accounted for it. You haven't shown how you account for it. But this is beside the point. I'm not making the claim that your fantasy method works. Perhaps it does. Perhaps it somehow accesses a higher geometry beyond the geometry we know, and returns the right answer even with the wrong reasoning. It isn't up to me to show that. It is up to the promoter of the idea. Come on; I test my test equipment before I use it to test equipment. If you or the person you are reporting from are serious about this method, then it is up to you to fully understand and thoroughly test it.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 31, 2011 19:54:28 GMT -4
Everything I see by this method you present has a margin of error from what I can see and looks flawed, from the height of the clouds to the film speeds used and converted to what speeds? There just seems like a lot of lee way in interpreting the information. The result =X plus or minus a certain percent. If you are pushing this then I expect you have looked this up? Every calculation has an error margin, including the ones presented here. Claiming anything else would be foolish. But as shown in the example with Ares X-1 the error margin lies in the region of ca 1-2%. But when we apply the same method on Apollo 11 we get a discrepancy of about 100 to 150% between the data we get and data declared by NASA. For me it's more than obvious, that NASA has mooned the world. If you choose to continue to believe their nonsense stories, please, be my guest and do so. It's not my job to educate or to convince anyone. You can't derive error bars from one number! Let's say I claim I am psychic. You flip a coin and I call it. If I called it right, by your method my accuracy as a forecaster is 100%. If I called it wrong, again by your method my accuracy as a forecaster is 0%. Yet we all know, given a sufficient number of coin flips I will be right close to 50% of the time! The closeness of your estimate to the Ares velocity might be the product of an accurate method, or the product of pure chance. There is no way to know from this single data point. Now, if you applied your method to 100 flights, you'd start to be able to construct a statistical average.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 31, 2011 12:42:30 GMT -4
Bah. I'm still following, but I have lost the desire to try to participate....in part because I am still under moderation (and Doctor Socks isn't?!) so anything I write gets posted as much as 12 hours later.
|
|