|
Post by greymick on Feb 2, 2008 17:19:15 GMT -4
Hi Guys, Thanks for the welcome I have no desire to labour the point, it just jars on me when I see a high def picture of the LM on the lunar surface. Cheers Why is this one thing enough to convince you? What about every other piece of evidence--and there are thousands? If this one thing doesn't seem right to you, but there are thousands of others, doesn't that mean that it's more likely to be your assumptions that are wrong, not the thing itself? Convince me of what? After a lot of ahem, research (yes I admit it, youtube as well) only 3 things struck me as odd. The LM itself. Al Bean seeming to know nothing of the Apollo journey through the Van Allen belts.(Sibrel interview) The Apollo 15 flag.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Feb 2, 2008 17:52:04 GMT -4
Al Bean seeming to know nothing of the Apollo journey through the Van Allen belts.(Sibrel interview) Hopefully this won't come across as too insulting, because its really just meant as more of an observation, but if you are basing any of your opinions upon anything presented by that charlatan Sibrel, my opinion of you has just dropped several levels. Not that I think my opinion of you matters to you at all, of course (and in all honesty, it probably shouldn't)... but I believe that if you had done as much research as you have claimed, you'd see that Sibrel is in no way shape or form any kind of a reliable source of information. Cz
|
|
|
Post by greymick on Feb 2, 2008 17:52:21 GMT -4
Here;s the link for the Bean/Van Allen thing www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYMEApollo 15 flag www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82YBy the way, my opinion of Sibrel is not high at all. His video is truly a work of reverse genius. It's so bad it's good. To clarify, he's a maggot. And to clarify further, you're quite correct, your opinion of me at this stage is of no importance to myself.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 2, 2008 18:11:26 GMT -4
I think we agree on Sibrel's trustworthiness and honesty.
Al Bean's reaction seems suspicious only if you buy into the conspiracy theory notion that the Van Allen belts are invariably deadly. They aren't. Bart Sibrel is an expert on the Van Allen belts the same way Britney Spears is an expert on parenting. The fact is simply that passage through the Van Allen belts is gives you about as much radiation as a couple of chest x-rays -- in other words, no big deal.
So the astronauts say stuff like, "Yeah we went through the Van Allen belts; so what?" This seems suspicious only after Sibrel has carefully hyped up how "dangerous" they are. He manufactures this inconsistency out of nothing more substantial than his own ignorance. Sibrel just expects the viewer to take his word for the astrophysical properties of the Van Allen belts.
I think we've said all that needs to be said about the LM. It may not look like what a lot of people think of when they hear "spaceship," but I've gone over its design many times and it looks to me like a pretty well-designed spacecraft. I know, I've seen a few.
The Apollo 15 flag is still sort of an interesting question. There are still some open questions. Using photographic analysis methods we can't verify that the astronaut didn't pass close enough to the flag to actually touch it. But that's inconclusive. The other prevailing opinion is that it's electrostatic attraction. Lots of static electricity builds up in the lunar environment. That's what makes the lunar dust stick so tenaciously to the astronauts' suits. That theory is helped by some people's observation that the flag begins to move before the astronaut passes.
The notion that it's a wake in the air is pretty farfetched because I've tried it and I can't get the flag to move like that just by walking past it. The conspiracy theorists show you the Apollo video and assertively tell you they've explained the behavior. But they haven't tested their explanation. They simply have a theory, which frankly is more likely to come from wishful thinking than actual science.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 2, 2008 19:21:50 GMT -4
After a lot of ahem, research (yes I admit it, youtube as well) only 3 things struck me as odd. The LM itself. Al Bean seeming to know nothing of the Apollo journey through the Van Allen belts.(Sibrel interview) The Apollo 15 flag. So where do we stand on the LM issue? We've provided answers to your inquiry -- such as producing pictures, description of the LM's construction, the reasons it was constructed in that way, etc. -- yet you still list "the LM itself" as one of the things that strikes you as odd. Do you still find something odd about it or is that no longer a problem for you? Please tell us if you find our responses adequate or not. And if not, why?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 3, 2008 18:15:09 GMT -4
Convince me of what? After a lot of ahem, research (yes I admit it, youtube as well) only 3 things struck me as odd. The LM itself. Al Bean seeming to know nothing of the Apollo journey through the Van Allen belts.(Sibrel interview) The Apollo 15 flag. You said you were unsure about Apollo in your first post, that some things about it seemed odd to you. What would convince you that they weren't odd, and that the problems are with your assumptions, not the data? And okay, there are three things that bother you. Why do they outweigh the thousands of others? Why are those three things enough to make you unsure despite, you know, an awful lot of moonrocks and things?
|
|
|
Post by greymick on Feb 3, 2008 20:03:25 GMT -4
Again let me state my position. I do indeed believe in the moon landings. On the balance of evidence presented on the web (yep sorry) no other conclusion is possible. I really don't get the edgy cross examination. No hidden agendas. I just wondered if someone on here had answers. The facts I went with are The LM. I take on board all the technical discussions. I would like to apologise for my initial views on this one, gut reaction if you will. Bean didn't know about the belts. I need to reference the known facts about the belts. The flag moves. No answer as yet, maybe I should experiment. Thank you for ALL replies. They have given me much food for thought. I will now do more research to corroborate what everyone has kindly mentioned here. The fact one member approves of my further research (for want of a better term) and another doesn't shows we're all human! Best regards from the UK.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2008 20:54:47 GMT -4
I would like to apologise for my initial views on this one, gut reaction if you will.
A common gut reaction, but an incorrect one. Most people know how to build something. But spacecraft construction is a unique science that you don't know until you've studied it.
Bean didn't know about the belts.
He knew about them. Anyone who studies astrophysics even casually knows about them. He just didn't consider them a particular danger. His confusion is because he doesn't realize Sibrel's misconception.
It's as if someone hyped up the danger of water: drowning, flash floods, etc. Then he confronts a swimmer and asked him to explain how he was able to navigate such a universally "deadly" medium. Of course the swimmer will wonder why the interviewer is asking such a question.
I need to reference the known facts about the belts.
You can spend the rest of your life doing that. There are many known facts about the Van Allen belts. Many of the spacecraft that we rely upon for modern life spend their entire lives there. Of course you can summarize the Van Allen phenomenon in a paragraph, but to understand it completely takes a great deal of study; the mathematical models that describe it and allow us to build machines to work there are fairly complex.
If you decide you don't want to become an amateur astrophysicist, you can just take Dr. Van Allen's word for it: he specifically repudiated the notion that the Van Allen belts would prevent manned missions to the Moon.
No answer as yet, maybe I should experiment [with the flag].
Yes, you should. The flags raised on the Moon were ordinary, consumer flags with some custom tailoring to fit them to the flagpole. Go out and buy a nylon flag 1 x 1.5 meters and see what it takes to make it move or stay still. But do keep in mind that the stitching on all those stars and stripes makes the United State flag a bit stiffer, on average, than the same sized flags of most Commonwealth countries.
|
|