|
Post by gillianren on May 23, 2007 3:23:32 GMT -4
David:
I totally understand that the science is overwhelming. Believe me, I do. But the best evidence is not on YouTube. I picked up a book at my local library just yesterday that's enormous pictures of the process of getting to the Moon, including commentary by several of the prominent engineers. (Including that possibly-war criminal who shall remain nameless, true.) I got a set of DVDs for Christmas that includes information going back to Mercury. People like Jay, who have forgotten more about space travel than I'll ever know, probably have literally dozens of books, if not hundreds, and hundreds of hours of video/DVD, on the subject.
So. Why don't you trust what the experts say? You don't know how to do the physics any more than I do, and it shows even to me. There are people all over the world, not just in the US, who make their living using Apollo data, and it hasn't failed 'em yet. And that's including certain countries who, at various times over the last four decades, would love to show up the United States.
If it's so easy to figure out that it's a fake that you can do it with pixellated YouTube videos, how come Soviet schoolkids were taught that Apollo was real? If it's so easy to figure out that it's a fake, are all people in relevant fields who accept the data as genuine fools, liars, or both?
And for the umpteenth time, why couldn't the missions have been real? And why are you so determined that they aren't?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 23, 2007 9:05:33 GMT -4
The psychology of it is the only interesting part of david's argument. The experience of hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, and managers involved - let alone the astronauts; hundreds of kilograms of unique and unforgeable samples; telemetry, voice, and video received to, from, around, and on the Moon - the origin of which cannot be faked; thousands of highly-detailed still and hundreds of hours of motion imagery; years of data from ALSEP stations, which required hand setup, and whose telemetry, again, unfakeably originated from the Moon; hundreds of tons of flight, test, and ground support hardware for inspection; millions of pages of programmatic, technical, and scientific data generated during and since the program; and scientific, technical, and managerial data and techniques which are in widespread use today.
But david waves that all aside because he thinks some things move funny in some highly-compressed video he looks at - his only mode of "research" - despite the fact he has no real understanding of the subject. That's the True Believer in action. His claims are completely bogus and take very little experience or self-education to debunk, so they are not interesting. But the mindset of someone who is so determined to ignore all the evidence listed above in favor of his own layman's opinion - not that's sort of interesting. You could probably do an interesting thesis on the psychology of someone who cannot consider that his own understanding might be inadequate, despite the patient attempts of the informed to set him straight.
There's also the sheer arrogance of someone who thinks that something so obviously to him, despite his own admitted ignorance of the subject, has somehow all the engineers, scientists, and educated laymen all these decades such footage has been publicly available, and that his snippets of YouTube and Google Video trump all the evidence mentioned above. But that arrogance is an integral part of his worldview.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 23, 2007 10:10:32 GMT -4
You could probably do an interesting thesis on the psychology of someone who cannot consider that his own understanding might be inadequate, despite the patient attempts of the informed to set him straight.
Michael Shermer has. He is a psychologist, and the world of persistent belief interests him.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 23, 2007 10:14:54 GMT -4
Well, thinking about it, I'd guess it depends on how the wheel and soil interacted.
I agree. I think both regimes are physically valid, but I'm not sure which, if either, dominates in this example. I just wanted to clarify that you and I likely had different models.
|
|
MarkS
Earth
Why is it so?
Posts: 101
|
Post by MarkS on May 23, 2007 11:54:49 GMT -4
I just took another look at the footage. It's at an angle but the trajectory of the soil is clear enough. Accurately tracking individual dust particle trajectories on a thirty-year-old limited-resolution video is...beyond human. Seriously, rocky, Heroes has been extended for a second season. Had you considered auditioning?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 23, 2007 17:23:52 GMT -4
Rocky, try and understand what we are saying:
1. You cannot see individual dust particles in the videos, all you can see are aggregates of dust.
2. Because the rover wheels are not moving at constant velocity on the loose surface, some of the dust particles leave the wheels at higher speeds than others.
3. Higher speed particles catch up with lower speed particles, creating denser regions that are easier to see.
4. Lower speed particles fall behind higher speed ones, creating less dense regions that are harder to see.
5. What you see in the video are the higher density regions, which are not necessarily moving at the same speed as the individual particles that make them up, as particles join and leave these regions.
6. This behaviour also occurs in dust on earth, but is less obvious because it is usually swamped by the interactions between dust and atmosphere, the billowing and hanging phenomena. However, the basic principle of density waves can be easily demonstrated on earth with a garden hose.
7. There is no sign of these atmospheric effects in the videos.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on May 23, 2007 18:14:20 GMT -4
I picked up a book at my local library just yesterday This raises a great point. I would like to suggest that Jay put a list of books that he recommends to HB's up on his website. I know that most HBs wont bother, but then again, most HBs wont bother to read Jays website. For the few that do, a list of books might help to show them the light. As a good example, many people think it would be possible to keep all but a small cadre of workers in the dark as to the true nature of the conspiracy. If you read a book like Chariots of Apollo you will realize that it simply wouldn't have been possible to keep those engineers in the dark.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 23, 2007 18:19:09 GMT -4
Nice summing-up, gwiz. Excellent, in fact. I finally can really understand what I was looking at.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 23, 2007 18:49:12 GMT -4
I would like to suggest that Jay put a list of books that he recommends to HB's up on his website.www.clavius.org/bibbooks.html But it needs revision, as usual. Engineers resist being kept in the dark. Because engineers are held legally liable in a special way for the validity of their work, it is not in their nature to rely blindly on information given to them without questioning it.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 23, 2007 20:42:02 GMT -4
Do particles leave a spinning tire tangentally? I always perceived the "clumps" (more like "waves" to me) as being moments where the tires are spinning, losing traction as they lift off the surface in a bounce, perhaps sending larger amounts of dust a bit higher, at greater velocity... Just what I see when I watch it...
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 24, 2007 3:27:56 GMT -4
My new book is called Moon: Man's Greatest Adventure, with text by Wernher Von Braun, Silvio A. Bedini, and Fred L. Whipple. (Who clearly moonlighted--so to speak--from his work on the space program selling toilet paper. But anyway.) I'd say each page is maybe 12"x18", give or take. Most of the pages are taken up with very large pictures indeed.
Okay, I just discovered this one (I've been busy and haven't really gone through it all yet, and it's not exactly of a convenient taking-on-the-bus size!)--a fold-out Apollo 11 mission diagram showing what I believe may well be a scale representation of the mission's travels, including things like "CSM Computer Update from MCC-H" that I have no idea what they mean, but it's pretty cool. Gods, I love library booksales. So much cooler than YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 24, 2007 4:48:21 GMT -4
My new book is called Moon: Man's Greatest Adventure, with text by Wernher Von Braun, Silvio A. Bedini, and Fred L. Whipple. (Who clearly moonlighted--so to speak--from his work on the space program selling toilet paper. But anyway.) I'd say each page is maybe 12"x18", give or take. Most of the pages are taken up with very large pictures indeed. Okay, I just discovered this one (I've been busy and haven't really gone through it all yet, and it's not exactly of a convenient taking-on-the-bus size!)--a fold-out Apollo 11 mission diagram showing what I believe may well be a scale representation of the mission's travels, including things like "CSM Computer Update from MCC-H" that I have no idea what they mean, but it's pretty cool. Gods, I love library booksales. So much cooler than YouTube. When was it published, Gillian?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 24, 2007 5:01:40 GMT -4
Frustratingly enough, I can't find the copyright date! The copyright page doesn't say. However, since it only goes up to Apollo 12, either it's pre-Apollo 13 or they wanted to leave off on a high note. (I will also note that there are other coffee table books listed on the dust jacket ranging from $25 to $45.)
Okay, checked Amazon--it says 1970. It also lists a price ten times higher than the one the library wanted for it, so now, I really love library books sales.
|
|
|
Post by svector on May 24, 2007 5:59:29 GMT -4
Frustratingly enough, I can't find the copyright date! The copyright page doesn't say. However, since it only goes up to Apollo 12, either it's pre-Apollo 13 or they wanted to leave off on a high note. (I will also note that there are other coffee table books listed on the dust jacket ranging from $25 to $45.) Okay, checked Amazon--it says 1970. It also lists a price ten times higher than the one the library wanted for it, so now, I really love library books sales. Interesting. Does it contain any of the original Hasselblad stills from 11 and 12?
|
|
|
Post by AstroSmurf on May 24, 2007 6:24:48 GMT -4
Hey, cool! Incidentally, CSM is the Command and Service Module (which you probably knew), and the MCC-H is short for Mission Control Center in Houston. Not sure what the event refers to though.
|
|