|
Post by scooter on Jul 1, 2007 11:45:47 GMT -4
All I did was ask. The radiation issue doesn't make or break this. If it turns out that radiation levels were low enough to make it to the moon, that doesn't prove that they went. That's not conclusive proof. Interesting read, now I see where you get many of your notions. Unfortunately, hi he wrong on many counts, and thusly, so are you. You need a more even application of your skepticism, rocky. Investigate HIS claims as closely as you do the Apollo record.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 1, 2007 11:46:20 GMT -4
There are no clear shots of an object being thrown in all of the Apollo footage. That in itself is suspicious.You haven't looked. The Apollo videos are full of stuff being thrown. www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1702944.mpgI have heard this claim by HBs so often that this video should be placed in the Moonhoax FAQs.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 1, 2007 11:51:20 GMT -4
I'm still not convinced by your assertations that it's impossible to make sand dust-free. And yet once again you ignore the most important element of the argument. Dust-free sand, if it were possible to make, is non-cohesive. Non-cohesive material cannot form well-defined impressions. There is video evidence of the lunar soil simultaneously being (acting as if it were) dust-free and forming impressions. Your washed sand theory cannot explain the evidence and therefore must be rejected. I suggest a trip to the emergency room to get those fingers removed from your ears.
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jul 1, 2007 12:00:46 GMT -4
I'm still not convinced by your assertations that it's impossible to make sand dust-free. And yet once again you ignore the most important element of the argument. Dust-free sand, if it were possible to make, is non-cohesive. Non-cohesive material cannot form well-defined impressions. There is video evidence of the lunar soil simultaneously being dust-free and forming impressions. Your washed sand theory cannot explain the evidence and therefore must be rejected. I suggest a trip to the emergency room to get those fingers removed from your ears. I think you meant to say, "being dusty."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2007 12:08:03 GMT -4
All I did was ask.
But the fact that you had to ask speaks volumes. Anyone who paid attention in science class and who has studied the Apollo record can tell that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. You're absolutely sure Apollo was faked, yet by having to ask whether this guy has a point you demonstrate that your belief is not based on study or knowledge.
That's not conclusive proof.
But it is conclusive proof that you're reading and believing bogus sources.
You're not looking for information that will help you settle any question. You're looking for ammunition you can use in debate to protect and defend a belief you desperately, strongly wish to hold. When that's the case, you can't really call yourself rational and well-founded.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 1, 2007 12:24:23 GMT -4
I think you meant to say, "being dusty." I think what I really meant to say is that video is free of dust clouds. If the video were shot on Earth, we'd expect one of the following scenarios: #1 - A coarse-grained non-cohesive material that would neither aerosolize nor form impressions (assuming such a material is possible to make dust free). #2 - A fine-grained cohesive material that would both aerosolize and form impressions. Rocky's theory requires that we have a magical material that is simultaneously coarse-grained so it won't aerosolize and fine-grained so it will form impressions. Good luck finding that. Edited to add: The explanation, of course, for the Apollo video is that we have a fine-grained cohesive material that is in a vacuum. The lack of atmosphere prevents aerosolation while the material’s mechanical properties allows the formation of sharp impressions. This combination of observations forms a contradiction on Earth, but is normal for the Moon.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 1, 2007 12:26:43 GMT -4
A good clear frontal shot of an object being thrown to illustrate the difference in gravity would do it. The speed and trajectory would have been very different from that of an object thrown on earth. There are no clear shots of an object being thrown in all of the Apollo footage. That in itself is suspicious. This is a daft claim, because gravity can be simulated by changing the projection speed. In that case, it would not convince you, because if we point out such film to you, you will start claiming it was taken on earth and slowed down. Admit that nothing will ever convince you, because your support for the hoax theory is not based on evidence but on belief.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 1, 2007 12:56:03 GMT -4
The Groves/Percy video analysys clip was telling. The photo they used was cropped and offcenter. Why would they use a cropped photo to argue picture center issues, when any fool can pull up the ORIGINAL and see there is no issue. Bogus data, bogus argument. Your thoughts, rocky, on this misleading evidence? What would motivate these leading investigators to lie?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 1, 2007 13:09:16 GMT -4
There are several things which you people have never been able to refute satisfactorily. The catch here is "satisfactorily". It shows that we (the 'debunkers') have refuted it, but that you have not been convinced (by whatever reason). It does not at all mean that the refutation is not good enough; it's just not good enough for the standards of somebody of whom it took weeks to realize how dust particles really behaved. Wrong. You have been shown, through calculations, that playing lunar footage at double speed would naturally make the lunar gravity look like earth gravity. Thus, it does not prove anything. Distortion of data and further compression are what caused the glint. They're actually all over the place in the Apollo footage: if you take a look at all of the footage you can see glints like these popping up all over the place. I think that's called objectivity, as opposed to taking one small clip where the glint is only shown once, and saying "I don't accept your refutations". Reflection of Armstrong's sun-lit arm. Also, do you agree with Spasmo's statement "It's completely correct, but only a moron would accept it"? Because that is an ad hominem, and is not really an argument at all. It's oftenly used when the person is out of real arguments. Thanks for demonstrating that. It's fun to see how high your standards are on accepting proof of the moon landings being real, but how low your standards are on accepting proof of the moon landings being fake. It's even more fun considering how your high standards are actually met. It shows how you lack knowledge on the Apollo missions. Just like the rest of discussion in this topic shows your lack of knowledge on science. Now you may accept it all you like. Just remember what lies on the base of these arguments, and what lies on the base of your arguments. M'kay? To the others: In one of the Hot Spot discussions, I've seen a screenshot from the lunar TV footage where Armstrong seen in sunlight. Does anybody know where I can find that?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 1, 2007 13:23:17 GMT -4
Why would they use a cropped photo to argue picture center issues, when any fool can pull up the ORIGINAL and see there is no issue.
They didn't pull up the original. They purport that their research is based on good evidence and sound methods, but in fact they simply downloaded one of the commonly-available JPEGs off the web, where someone had given Aldrin a bit more headroom during the scan. You cannot plausibly discuss authenticity using convenience data.
What would motivate these leading investigators to lie?
I have my ideas, of course, but the crucial point here is to realize that I don't need to know their motives in order to determine that they have lied. My conclusion is based on objective fact: I can put their version of the photograph next to a more faithful copy and determine that theirs is incorrect. It's not subjective. It's not based on what I surmise about them as men. It's a simple comparison of allegation against fact.
Rocky's method is just the opposite. He purports first to call certain people liars or biased, to question their motives and backgrounds. Then he says, based on what he has guessed, that what they're saying "must" be lies because of the background.
It's important to see why our approach aims at finding out the truth while Rocky's approach aims at creating an excuse to ignore people who disagree with him.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 1, 2007 13:31:26 GMT -4
Rocky, you are not "shy" in calling out "inconsistancies". The lunat suits were pressurized to 3.5 psi, not 5 psi. That is a huge difference, and was commented on by the astronauts when they did their suit leak checks. 4psi made a big difference in the suit "feel" over the nominal 3.5. Your source(s) got it wrong. Can you accept this? ...and the subsequent arguments it refutes?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 1, 2007 18:09:45 GMT -4
Rocky, I have a resonably complete description of how the PLSS works on my Apollo 9 page. Here's a more in depth NASA page on it.You should note that the Apollo PLSS remains in use today, almost unchanged in its design, in the role of life support for the Shuttle and ISS astronauts. The Soviets also used a sublimator based cooling system during their MIR and Soyuz missions. Likewise, the Apollo SM used a similar sublimator as part of its cooling system, as does the ISS. Quite simply, if this technology didn't work as advertised then the Soviet space program, the Shuttle and the ISS are all hoaxes as well, and since I have seen both the shuttle and the ISS with my own eyes.....
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 1, 2007 18:39:28 GMT -4
Transitions can be gradual. Who knows what kind of classified equipment they had back then. Oh you are so boring and predictable. When told it can't be done the way you say, insist that they must have had something that would allow them to do what you say happened. Who cares? You have made it abundantly clear that you will not be convinced by anything at all. Everyone on the entire planet is capable of doing that, rocky. Provide evidence that that is the case here or else retract your thinly veiled accusation. You are aware of what this whole site thinks of the HB community. So what? Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. If one piece of footage can be conclusively shown to have been filmed on Earth all it shows is that that piece was filmed on Earth. If just one piece of footage can be conclusively shown to have been shot the Moon then they went, and all the arguments about the impossibility of achieving a lunar landing fail utterly. Apollo is not a house of cards, able to be toppled by one single piece of 'smoking gun' footage. Most HB arguments, however, are, because they often insist that the landing was impossible Showing that one piece of footage was shot on the Moon totally contradicts that position. Get it through your head that the evidence is considered in its ENTIRETY. This is not a case of having one piece of conclusive proof but of finding all the evidence pointing to the same conclusion. I couldn't care less what you think closes the case. As far as I'm concerned that just demonstrates your ignorance about what you are looking at. If you don't know, why bring it up? It just illustrates your ignorance further. No doubt we will provide lengthy explanations of where he is wrong and you will remain unconvinced because it doesn't suit your preferred conclusion. Since you ahve already intimated that you think we are all liars, why even ask us?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 1, 2007 18:56:56 GMT -4
Against two of the three methods of thermal transfer, yes. Against radiation, no. as he recognises here and thus contradicts himself:
Nope, wrong. Sorry.
No, they do not. They insist that a water cooled undergarment was used.
Are they air conditioned or water cooled? Why doesn't he know?
Except there is no heat in space, as he has gone to great lengths to tell us earlier on. The temperature he quotes is the maximum temperature reached by the lunar surface, and has no relevance to the astronaut or his PLSS backpack.
What heats up the ice in the permanently shaded craters? The ice in the PLSS is heated by the astronaut's body temperature.
NASA never claimed any such thing.
Which is pretty much what NASA says was the purpose. This guy just has no idea how hot the capsule got or how quickly the shaded side could cool down, and he fails to take into account the internal active coolant system.
Er, nope. They claim a water/glycol coolant was circulated.
Of course he has the calculations to prove this? Doesn't he? No? Oh well, never mind, I'm sure you'll take his word for it anyway, rocky.
Nope, there were two separate engines for that, one in the descent stage that was used for landing and one in the ascent stage used for takeoff. This is not even hard material to come by, so why he makes such an elementary mistake is a bit of a mystery. Could it be because he actually has no clue what he is on about?
Rubbish. I can see it quite clearly in film, TV and photographs. Could it be that he has no clue what it looks like?
Then examine the footage of the simulator in use and you'll see just how ridiculous that claim is.
Good grief. If you examine the Apollo film, TV and photographic record it is replete with shots of astronauts going in and out of the LM through that hatch in their spacesuits. Why should I need to measure various things to determine the possibility that something could be done when I have proof of it actually being done?
No, they don't. 3.5psi is the figure used.
Then he examined the wrong glove. The pressurised glove had bulbous joints at the knuckles. An unpressurised protective gauntlet was the put on over the top of that glove.
Find any picture of any astronaut on any EVA from the entire space program of the US and the USSR where they have evidently pressurised gloves.
That guy has no idea what he is talking about and demonstrably has not done even the most elementary research into Apollo itself. But you won't believe a word of that because you so desperately want him to be right.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jul 1, 2007 19:00:36 GMT -4
There are no clear shots of an object being thrown in all of the Apollo footage. How exactly do you justify that statement when you admit you have not seen most of the record yourself? I have seen large portions of it, and I assure you it is full of examples of objects being thrown. But why would we ever believe you would consider that proof when you go to great lengths in another post to convince us that lunar gravity can be simulated by slowing the film and having the astronauts move deliberately faster than normal? You've effectively told us that you believe the one thing you would consider proof can be faked!
|
|